list-document-form-submissionsList form submissions for a document. Supports paging via "page" and "per_page".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | The page number to retrieve (1-based). | |
| doc_id | Yes | The public id of the document whose form submissions to list. | |
| per_page | No | Number of items per page (max 100). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that it supports paging, but this is already detailed in the schema. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, default returns) are disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long and conveys the core purpose and paging feature concisely. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, though some might argue it is slightly terse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters with full schema coverage and annotations for safety, the description is adequate but does not explain return values or error conditions. Since there is no output schema, a brief note on what is returned would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions paging via 'page' and 'per_page,' which mirrors the schema descriptions, adding no new meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List form submissions for a document,' specifying the verb 'List' and the resource 'form submissions for a document.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list-document-annotations' and 'list-document-links'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other list tools). It only states its basic function without mentioning prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.