Skip to main content
Glama

MisarMail MCP Server

by io.github.Misar-AI

get_form

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get one signup form in full: its fields, its embed code, and where it redirects after submission.

Use it when you need the embed snippet to install the form, or need to know which fields it collects before interpreting submissions. For the submitted data itself, use get_form_submissions; for the list of forms, list_forms.

Reads only; the form is not modified and no submission is created. Requires an API key. The embed code is meant to be pasted into a site, so returning it does not publish anything by itself.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
form_idYesForm ID (UUID)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description clearly states 'Reads only; the form is not modified and no submission is created,' reinforcing and expanding on the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations. It also adds context that an API key is required and that returning the embed code does not publish anything by itself, which reduces potential misuse concerns.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the primary purpose and return contents, then moves to usage guidance and safety notes. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but every sentence provides useful context—no filler or duplication.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what is returned (fields, embed code, redirect), when to use it, and why it is safe. The annotations and parameter schema cover the remaining structural details, so nothing important is missing.

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?

The only parameter, form_id, is already fully described in the schema as 'Form ID (UUID)', giving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds little beyond confirming the tool retrieves one signup form, but since the schema covers the parameter adequately, a baseline score of 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: 'Get one signup form in full,' and enumerates exactly what is returned (fields, embed code, redirect target). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_form_submissions and list_forms as alternatives for different needs.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: when needing the embed snippet to install the form or to know which fields are collected before interpreting submissions. It also provides direct exclusions: use get_form_submissions for submitted data and list_forms for the list of forms.

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

All MisarMail MCP Server 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools are cleanly separated by resource and action, and the descriptions do a good job of cross-referencing related tools. However, there are several close clusters—get_analytics vs generate_report, get_deliverability_score vs run_deliverability_audit, check_dmarc vs verify_domain, and list_emails vs list_inbox_conversations vs get_email—that could cause an agent to pick the wrong one. The detailed descriptions reduce but do not eliminate this ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern throughout: create_, get_, list_, send_, toggle_, and so on. Even multi-word actions like select_ab_test_winner and categorize_inbox_emails stay uniform. The only slight deviation is the bare verb upgrade, but it is readable and does not break the overall pattern.

Tool Count2/5

54 tools is far beyond the typical well-scoped MCP surface and lands heavily in the 'too many' range. While the domain is broad, many tools could be consolidated—multiple analytics/reporting tools, several deliverability checks, and separate email/inbox listing tools create redundancy. The sheer number increases selection overhead and makes the toolset harder for an agent to navigate reliably.

Completeness3/5

The core email marketing lifecycle is represented: domains, contacts, campaigns, templates, automations, sends, and analytics all have main operations. However, there are notable gaps—no update/delete for campaigns, templates, forms, or automations; no create/update/delete for forms; no sandbox enable/disable; and no way to install marketplace items. These are workable gaps but would cause failures for agents trying to perform full lifecycle management.

Resources