export_form_responses_csvExport a form's submitted responses as a downloadable CSV — one row per submission, one column per question, plus Submitted At — and return a download link. Requires event_id + form_id; you must be a host. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| form_id | Yes | ||
| event_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it returns a download link and mentions read-only, which is consistent. It also describes the output format, adding value beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that states the action, output, and requirements. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses minimal words effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains the output structure (one row per submission, one column per question, plus Submitted At) and return type (download link), compensating for lack of output schema. It does not cover error cases, but given the tool's simplicity, it is fairly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description mentions that both parameters are required and provides context (event_id and form_id identify the form). This adds meaning beyond the schema, though it does not elaborate on constraints or usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool exports form responses as a downloadable CSV, specifying the output structure (one row per submission, one column per question, plus Submitted At) and that it returns a download link. It distinguishes from siblings like list_form_responses by specifying CSV export.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states prerequisites (requires event_id + form_id, must be a host, read-only). It provides clear context for when to use, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use. The sibling list_form_responses exists but is not referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, particularly the generic create_production_item vs specific add_* tools (e.g., add_role, add_meal). This creates ambiguity, as agents may struggle to choose between generic and specific counterparts. Additionally, similar verbs like 'add', 'create', and 'bulk_create' blur boundaries.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (add_guest, list_events), but there are inconsistencies: 'bulk_create_promo_codes' instead of 'create_bulk_promo_codes', mix of 'list' and 'get' (list_events vs get_account_status), and varied verbs like 'set', 'update', 'delete', 'archive', 'unarchive', 'reorder'. Overall pattern recognizable but not uniform.
115 tools is excessive for most domains, including event management. While the domain is complex, this granularity overwhelms agents and makes selection difficult. The tool count far exceeds typical well-scoped servers (3-15), indicating poor abstraction.
The tool set covers an extensive range of event management activities: events, tickets, guests, affiliates, discounts, production items, forms, communities, sponsors, and more. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct event deletion, only cancellation), but overall the surface is comprehensive for the stated purpose.