get_submissionRetrieve a specific Fillout form submission by its form ID and submission ID to view or process the submitted data.
Get one submission by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| raw | No | ||
| formId | Yes | The form's public ID (from list_forms or the form URL) | |
| submissionId | Yes | The submission ID | |
| includeEditLink | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that - no note on what a submission record contains, whether missing IDs error, or how large the payload is. It restates the purpose rather than disclosing behavior.
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 short sentence with the identifying action front-loaded and zero waste. It is efficient, though its brevity edges toward under-specification rather than deliberate economy.
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?
A 4-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema and two undocumented parameters needs the description to explain what is returned and what raw/includeEditLink control. None of that is present, leaving the agent without enough to call it confidently in non-trivial cases.
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 only 50%: formId and submissionId are documented in the schema, but raw and includeEditLink have no descriptions anywhere. The description does not compensate for those two undocumented parameters, adding no meaning beyond the schema.
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 (Get) and resource (submission) with a scope of 'one ... by ID', which distinguishes it implicitly from the sibling list_submissions. It stops short of naming a sibling or the retrieval context, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The agent is left to infer that this is the single-item counterpart to list_submissions purely from the word 'one'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.