forms_list_responsesLists responses submitted to a Google Form, using optional pagination and a submitted_after timestamp filter to retrieve only newer submissions.
List form responses. submitted_after is an RFC 3339 timestamp filter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| form_id | Yes | ||
| page_size | No | ||
| page_token | No | ||
| submitted_after | No |
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the description need not restate safety. It adds nothing beyond those hints — no mention of pagination behavior, result ordering, or the fact that responses are scoped per form and may be large.
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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the one parameter note appended. Nothing is wasteful, though the extreme brevity is under-specification rather than efficient communication.
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 shape needn't be described, and annotations cover safety. However, for a paginated list endpoint with a page_token parameter, omitting any pagination/continuation guidance and leaving form_id/page_size undocumented leaves a real gap for correct invocation.
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 description must compensate; it only documents submitted_after as an RFC 3339 timestamp. The required form_id, page_size (default 25), and especially page_token are left wholly unexplained, so an agent cannot tell how to paginate from the description.
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 the specific verb and resource ('List form responses') and is clearly distinguishable from forms_get_response, which fetches a single response. It does not explicitly name that sibling, but the list-vs-get distinction is unambiguous.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus forms_get_response, or when a caller should switch to fetching individual responses. No mention of preconditions such as needing the form to exist or having access to it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.