Fillo

Pull a form definition

fillo_pull_form

Read-onlyIdempotent

The newest editable revision of a form — staged draft when one exists, else the published definition — in the shape fillo_push_form accepts (handle, schema, theme, storage, purpose). Reading unpublished work needs forms:write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`form`	Yes	Form id, slug, or push handle.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`slug`	Yes
`theme`	No	Theme tokens, or null.
`handle`	Yes
`schema`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`managed`	Yes
`purpose`	No
`storage`	No
`revision`	Yes
`settings`	Yes
`draftTheme`	No	Staged draft theme, or null.
`revisionId`	No	Id of the definition returned. Pass it to fillo_push_form as baseRevision when pushing a change built on it.
`draftSchema`	No	Staged draft FormSchema, or null.
`agentEditable`	No	True when the owner edits this form in the dashboard and an agent may also push to its handle.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 28, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / agentEditable

Added value: +{
+  "description": "True when the owner edits this form in the dashboard and an agent may also push to its handle.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / revisionId

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Id of the definition returned. Pass it to fillo_push_form as baseRevision when pushing a change built on it.",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

AddedSep 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the draft/published precedence rule and the forms:write auth requirement for unpublished reads. No return-format or pagination detail, but nothing here is a mutation risk.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the permission caveat; the parenthetical field list is dense but earns its place by promising push-compatibility. Minor density, no waste.

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 single-param, read-only tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: which revision comes back, that it is push-compatible, and the auth prerequisite. Nothing material 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single 'form' parameter already documented as id/slug/handle, so the schema carries the load. The description's handle/schema/theme/storage/purpose list describes the *response* shape, not the input parameter, so it adds no input semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (pull) and resource (form definition), and pins down *which* revision is returned: the newest editable one, staged draft when present, otherwise the published definition. It also says the output matches the shape fillo_push_form accepts, which tells an agent exactly what it gets. This clearly distinguishes it from fillo_get_form and fillo_list_versions.

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?

Explains the selection rule (draft-first, published-fallback) and the permission needed to read unpublished work, which gives real context for when this call will succeed versus fail. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative (e.g., get published-only via fillo_get_form), so it is clear but not fully routing.

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

All Fillo tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.