Skip to main content
Glama

Clipform

by io.github.Clipform

Get Clipform

clipform_get_form
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a form's details including all nodes in sequential order and their routing. Returns title, settings, and every node with its options, config, media status, and next node (from clipform_set_logic).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contextYesDescribe the user's underlying goal in one sentence - not the tool you're calling.
form_idYesThe form UUID (returned by clipform_create_form, not the short share_id from the URL)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlsNoDashboard/viewer deeplinks for this form. An anonymous caller gets only 'viewer'.
nodesYesNodes in sequential order - IDs for update_node / attach_node_media
titleYesForm title
form_idYesForm UUID
is_liveYesWhether the form is published
has_unpublished_changesYesLive form has edits not yet republished

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish read-only/idempotent safety, and the description adds real behavioral detail: it specifies that the response includes sequentially ordered nodes, each node's options/config/media status, and its next-node reference from clipform_set_logic. This explains the tool's traversal/routing behavior beyond what annotations convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, with the core purpose and scope stated first and a compact enumeration of return fields second. No filler or redundant restatement.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the tool's purpose, return structure, node ordering and routing provenance. With an output schema present and readOnly/idempotent hints in annotations, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters have meaningful descriptions, including the clarification that form_id is the UUID rather than the share_id. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve a form's details') and immediately states distinctive scope: all nodes in sequential order and their routing. This differentiates it from sibling list/get/mutation tools such as clipform_list_forms and clipform_update_form.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives. It does not mention siblings like clipform_get_workflow or clipform_list_forms, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Clipform toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most form/node CRUD tools are clearly distinct, but the render/generate trio (generate_video, render_video_template, render_composition) and get_responses vs get_results can be confused by name alone. The descriptions include strong disambiguation guidance, so the overlap is manageable but still present.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority of tools follow a consistent clipform_verb_noun snake_case pattern, with create/get/update/delete/list used predictably. Minor deviations include get_more_tools lacking the clipform_ prefix and whoami not matching the verb_noun convention.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, this is above the range where a toolset feels well-scoped, and several entries are auxiliary or internal (whoami, log_generation, get_more_tools, search_news). The domain is broad, but the surface could be consolidated without losing core capabilities.

Completeness4/5

The set covers form and node lifecycle, media upload/attachment, logic wiring, publishing, responses/results, and content generation (TTS, video, music, stock media). Minor gaps remain, such as no conditional branching in set_logic and no general media-library listing tool.

Resources