Sends an authenticated test submission to verify that the form endpoint and notification pipeline work end-to-end.
Sends an authenticated test submission to verify that the form endpoint and notification pipeline work end-to-end.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | Optional custom key-value payload to submit (e.g. { name: 'Test Lead', email: 'lead@example.com', message: 'Hello' }) | |
| form_id | Yes | UUID of the form endpoint to test |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals two traits: the call is authenticated and it exercises the notification pipeline (a real side effect, likely sending email/SMS). It does not say whether the test submission is persisted, whether it appears in get_form_submissions or counts toward workspace usage, or how failures are reported — significant gaps for a no-annotation tool.
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 single front-loaded sentence that states the action, the auth requirement, and the verification purpose with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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?
For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does but leaves key operational questions unanswered: whether the test lead is stored, whether it consumes workspace quota (a listed sibling, check_workspace_usage, tracks usage), and what the caller gets back to confirm success. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 (form_id UUID and the optional custom data payload with an example) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format, validation, or default information beyond that, so the baseline of 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 (sends) and resource (test submission) plus the intent: verifying the form endpoint and notification pipeline end-to-end. This clearly separates it from sibling read tools like get_form_submissions and from configuration tools like create_form/update_form_settings.
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?
Gives clear context for use — verifying a form endpoint and its notification pipeline work end-to-end — and the word 'test' implies it is not for real lead capture. However, it names no explicit exclusion or alternative (e.g., whether to prefer this over a real submission or how it relates to check_workspace_usage).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.