Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Fillout MCP Server

Fillout MCP Server

by OfirOhan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

List forms

list_forms
Read-only

Retrieve all Fillout forms in the account, returning each form's name and formId for use in other operations.

Instructions

List all Fillout forms in the account (name and formId).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_forms"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and network-access profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by naming the return fields, but says nothing about result limits or pagination, which matters for an open-world account-level listing.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause (scope, return fields) is informative and it is appropriately sized for a trivial list operation.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a zero-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the essential payload shape (name and formId). It is nearly complete, with only pagination/limit behavior left unaddressed.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; the schema accepts no input and the description correctly describes a no-argument call. Baseline of 4 applies for parameterless tools.

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 and resource ('List all Fillout forms') plus the scope ('in the account'), and adds the returned fields (name and formId). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_form, but the list-vs-fetch distinction is self-evident from the names.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative, though 'List all' implies it is the enumeration entry point while get_form retrieves a single form. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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