Skip to main content
Glama

Formstep

by io.github.formstep
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Insert repeating group

editor_insertRepeatingGroup

Insert a repeating group: a labeled block of member fields the respondent can add multiple instances of (e.g. "Who is coming?" repeated per guest, each with Name + Phone). Provide the group name and 1+ member fields — a group is auto-deleted if it has no fields, so it must be born with at least one. Member types: text, number, date, time, email, phone, url, radio, checkbox, select, switch, rating (choice types need options). Add other/complex member types AFTER creation with the normal editor_insert*Question tools, passing parentId = the group id. Both the whole-group id (renders every instance inline, e.g. "Alice - 111, Bob - 222") and each member field id can be @-mentioned in body text, emails, and PDFs. Returns members — one { nodeId, title, inputId, options } per member field, in order — so logic and updates can target them without editor_getDocument.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesGroup label shown above the block, e.g. "Guests" or "Who is coming?".
afterNoNodeId to insert after. Use $prev to chain. Omitting appends to end (usually wrong).
fieldsYesMember fields repeated together per instance. At least one — an empty group is auto-deleted.
formIdYesForm ID to insert into
isHiddenNoStart hidden (the target of a `show` rule).
addButtonLabelNoLabel for the "add another" button. Default: "Add".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / isHidden
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Start hidden (the target of a `show` rule).",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description goes well beyond that: the auto-deletion rule for empty groups, the @-mention behavior for group and member ids in body/email/PDF, and the returned `members` array shape all disclose behavior an agent could not infer from annotations.

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?

It is a dense single paragraph, but it is front-loaded with the definition and every sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information. It is longer than ideal, yet the length is justified by the tool's complexity rather than padding.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the `members` return payload in detail. Combined with creation constraints, id-reuse guidance, and routing to sibling insert tools, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter meaning — the parentId linkage for post-creation member inserts, which types require options, and the minimum-one-field invariant. It does not explain `after`/`$prev` chaining (that lives in the schema) but otherwise enriches semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (insert a repeating group) and defines the concept inline with a concrete example ('Who is coming?' repeated per guest). It also implicitly separates itself from the single-question siblings by noting those are used to add members AFTER creation.

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?

Gives explicit usage conditions: provide name and 1+ fields (a group with no fields is auto-deleted), choice types need options, and other/complex member types must be added later via editor_insert*Question with parentId = group id. It names the alternative tool family and the exact circumstance that selects it.

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

All Formstep 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