Skip to main content
Glama
Formward

formward-mcp

Official

Related Servers

Alternatives to formward-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Form backend an AI agent can run end to end: register the account, provision a site's forms in one bootstrap_site call, get the snippet with spam protection, and verify HMAC-signed webhooks. 26 tools over streamable HTTP (OAuth or bearer token) or stdio via npx @furrowforms/mcp.
      1
      MIT
    • F
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      MCP server for FormsList, a form-backend SaaS. Enables creating form endpoints, reading submissions, configuring auto-responses, and generating embed snippets via natural language.
      7
      -
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Exposes an Auth0 Form as an MCP server, enabling AI models to interact with the form via natural language. It uses a stateless HTTP MCP transport with Auth0 authentication.
      -
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      MCP server for Microsoft Forms automation, enabling AI agents to inspect forms, resolve branching, validate and submit answers, upload files, and manage response links.
      46 npm
      1
      MIT

    TDQS

    A3.7/5.0

    Scored across 8 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: forms (list/create/snippet/stats), templates (list), webhooks (list/add), and test sending. The only near-neighbors, list_forms and list_templates, are clearly separated by descriptions (workspace forms vs. reusable templates). No two tools compete for the same job.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Every tool follows a strict snake_case verb_noun pattern (send_test_submission, list_forms, create_form, get_form_stats, add_webhook, etc.). Verb choice is also semantically consistent: list_* for enumeration, get_* for single-resource lookups, create_/add_ for mutations.

    Tool Count5/5

    Eight tools is well-scoped for a form-building service: form lifecycle, templates, snippets, stats, testing, and webhooks each get dedicated tools with no filler. Nothing appears redundant or gratuitously split.

    Completeness3/5

    Creation, listing, embedding, and stats are covered, but the lifecycle has real holes: no update_form or delete_form, no get_form detail tool, and no way to remove or modify a webhook once added. Submission content is also unreadable programmatically (stats only), which limits the surface for agents.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues