fillout_get_formFetch one form's metadata: every question (id, name, type), calculations, URL parameters, scheduling and payment fields, and quiz settings. Use the question ids to read answers or to create submissions. Fillout: GET /forms/{formId}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| formId | Yes | The form's public id (the formId from fillout_list_forms, also the id in the form's share URL). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a non-mutating read. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the shape of the payload (questions, calculations, URL params, scheduling/payment/quiz settings), which matters since no output schema exists. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but the safety profile is already covered.
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?
Two sentences with the action and returned fields front-loaded, followed by the downstream usage hint and the API mapping. No filler, and nothing important is buried.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned metadata categories, and it links to how formId is obtained. Minor gaps remain on error/empty-form behavior, but the essential context for calling the tool is present.
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 coverage is 100% and the single formId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its origin (fillout_list_forms, share URL). The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch one form's metadata') and enumerates what is returned: questions with id/name/type, calculations, URL parameters, scheduling and payment fields, quiz settings. This clearly distinguishes it from fillout_get_submission and fillout_list_forms.
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?
It briefly points downstream ('Use the question ids to read answers or to create submissions'), which implies when this tool belongs in a workflow. However, it never names an alternative tool or states a when-not condition, so the routing guidance is only implied.
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.