Skip to main content
Glama

Clipform

by io.github.Clipform
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Log Form Generation Audit

clipform_log_generation

Internal audit step run by a form-generation workflow. Records a completed generation's content provenance (sources, image attributions) for the flow that just built the form. Not a user action - only call it as the final step of a generation workflow you are running, never in response to a plain create or edit request.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contextYesDescribe the user's underlying goal in one sentence - not the tool you're calling.
detailsYesContent sources and attributions
form_idYesThe form ID (UUID format, not the share ID)
summaryYesShort description of what was generated

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / details / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • removedInput schema / properties / details / properties / images / items / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • removedInput schema / properties / details / properties / sources / items / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / form_id / pattern
      Added value: +"^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$"
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / context
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Describe the user's underlying goal in one sentence - not the tool you're calling.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "form_id",
-  "summary",
-  "details"
-]New value: +[
+  "form_id",
+  "summary",
+  "details",
+  "context"
+]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the tool is an internal audit step, not a user-facing action, and it must be the terminal step of the workflow. It does not discuss what happens on repeated calls despite idempotentHint=false, which keeps it from a 5.

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 purpose front-loaded and the usage constraint immediately following. No filler, no restating of the title.

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?

For a non-read-only audit logger with full schema coverage, clear annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it records, why it exists, and the precise workflow position it must occupy.

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 description coverage is 100%, including nested images/sources objects, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline is 3. The description names the kind of content captured (sources, image attributions), which lightly maps to the 'details' parameter but adds no syntax or format guidance beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: it records content provenance (sources, image attributions) for a form that was just generated. It also positions the tool within the workflow ('internal audit step run by a form-generation workflow'), which separates it from siblings like clipform_create_form 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 Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit when-to-use ('only call it as the final step of a generation workflow you are running') and explicit when-not ('never in response to a plain create or edit request'). This is exactly the routing an agent needs to avoid misfiring this tool on ordinary form operations.

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
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources