Skip to main content
Glama

Clipform

by io.github.Clipform

Set Node Logic

clipform_set_logic
DestructiveIdempotent

Set the next node for one or more nodes, wiring a linear route (A to B to C). Pass multiple nodes in one call instead of separate tool calls. Each node routes to exactly one target node; conditional branching by which option was picked is not yet supported.

A call replaces that node's routing entirely - it does not merge with any prior target.

Example: nodes: [ { node_id: "q1-id", rules: [{ target_node_id: "q2-id" }] }, { node_id: "q2-id", rules: [{ target_node_id: "q3-id" }] } ]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodesYesOne or more nodes to set logic on
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
resultsYesOne result per node, in order

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses a critical behavioral trait: a call replaces routing entirely and does not merge with any prior target. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent must know before invoking the tool, especially alongside the destructiveHint annotation.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: main purpose, usage guidance, key constraint, replacement behavior, and a useful example. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant restating of the input schema.

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?

Given the rich input schema, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers all essential behavioral and usage information an agent needs. The example plus the explicit 'replaces entirely' warning make the tool callable correctly on the first attempt.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a concrete example showing how to chain node routes and clarifies the replace-not-merge semantics. The example gives an agent a reliable template for structuring the nodes array correctly.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Set the next node for one or more nodes') and clearly frames the tool as wiring a linear route. It also naturally distinguishes itself from broad node editing tools by stating the linearity and the lack of conditional branching, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like clipform_update_node.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It explicitly says to pass multiple nodes in one call instead of separate tool calls, giving a clear efficiency rule. It also states when the tool is not applicable ('conditional branching ... is not yet supported'), but it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for non-linear logic.

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