Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Backforms MCP

Backforms MCP

by Arneld18
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_form_details

Retrieve complete configuration, access keys, security settings, and active integrations for a specific form using its UUID to inspect and audit its setup.

Instructions

Retrieves complete configuration details, access keys, security settings, and active integrations for a specific form.

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": {
      "form_id": "<form_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_form_details"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
form_idYesUUID of the form endpoint to inspect

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.3

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Retrieves' implies a read-only operation and the enumeration of access keys and security settings usefully signals that sensitive data is returned, but there is no statement about required permissions or the read-only nature being guaranteed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the enumeration of returned content is the only density cost. Appropriate size for a one-parameter read tool.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple single-form read with no output schema, the description does give a high-level inventory of what comes back, which is more than nothing. However, with no annotations and no output schema it could say more about return shape and whether the call is safe/idempotent.

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

Parameters3/5

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

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('UUID of the form endpoint to inspect'), so the schema already does the work. The phrase 'a specific form' corroborates form_id but adds no format or scoping detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (retrieves) and resource (form configuration) and enumerates the content categories returned (access keys, security settings, integrations), which separates it from list_forms and get_form_submissions. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the eight siblings. The agent must infer that this is the inspection tool for a single form's configuration.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools