wufoo_get_formFetch one form's settings by hash or URL title — name, description, confirmation message, notification emails, public flag, language, start/end dates, entry limit and links. Wufoo: GET /forms/{identifier}.json.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| form | Yes | Form identifier: its permanent hash (e.g. s1afea8b1vk0jf7) or its URL title (e.g. wufoo-api-example). See wufoo_list_forms. | |
| includeTodayCount | No | Include EntryCountToday. |
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?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds the concrete field set returned and maps the call to the upstream endpoint (GET /forms/{identifier}.json), but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or behavior when the identifier is invalid.
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?
A tight single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, followed by a short endpoint reference. The endpoint tag is marginally redundant but grounds the call in the upstream API; nothing else is wasted.
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 carries the burden of conveying what comes back, and it does list the returned settings. Minor gaps remain (no error/not-found behavior, no mention of the optional includeTodayCount flag), but an agent has enough to call it correctly.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the hash-vs-URL-title distinction. The description echoes the identifier form but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, and never mentions includeTodayCount. 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 settings') and enumerates the returned fields (name, description, confirmation message, notification emails, public flag, language, dates, entry limit, links). The singular 'one form' plus the identifier-based lookup clearly separates it from the sibling wufoo_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?
The description implies when to use it ('by hash or URL title') and the schema points to wufoo_list_forms for discovering identifiers, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative for related reads like wufoo_get_form_fields. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
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.