forms_get_responseRetrieve a single Google Forms response by its form ID and response ID. Use it to inspect one respondent's submitted answers for a specific form.
Get one form response by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| form_id | Yes | ||
| response_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the retrieval scope ('one form response by id') and does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, missing-response behavior, or return structure, which is acceptable but thin given the 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 single sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the under-specification noted elsewhere rather than being purely a strength.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the annotations cover safety traits. However, with 0% schema description coverage on two required parameters, the description should do more to clarify the identifiers and basic retrieval behavior for an agent to invoke it confidently.
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%, so the schema does not explain form_id or response_id. The description says 'by id' but does not clarify that two separate identifiers are required or how they relate, leaving the parameter semantics largely undocumented.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: retrieving a single form response by id. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling forms_list_responses, though it does not explicitly name that sibling or contrast the two beyond the singular 'one'.
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 implies usage only through 'by id' and does not state when to choose this over forms_list_responses or what prerequisites, permissions, or error cases apply. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.