Qingflow MCP (CRUD)

Qingflow Form Get

qf_form_get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve form metadata and compact field summaries for a specific Qingflow app to understand its structure.

Instructions

Get form metadata and compact field summaries for one app.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "app_key": "<app_key>"
    },
    "name": "qf_form_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`app_key`	Yes
`user_id`	No
`force_refresh`	No
`include_raw`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`data`	Yes
`meta`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.0May 28, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint as true, which cover safety. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the annotations, such as the effect of force_refresh or include_raw parameters.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise at one sentence, but it may be too brief for the tool's complexity. It is front-loaded with the main action, but lacks elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has four parameters, sibling tools, and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not cover parameter semantics, return values, or how it fits into a workflow, making it incomplete for effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (app_key, user_id, force_refresh, include_raw). This fails to add meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent uninformed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'form metadata and compact field summaries for one app', providing a specific purpose. However, 'compact field summaries' is somewhat vague, and it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like qf_field_resolve.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., qf.query.record). It lacks any context about prerequisites or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server