Skip to main content
Glama

Patch KoboToolbox Form

kobo_patch_form
DestructiveIdempotent

Patch existing KoboToolbox forms by fixing typos, adding choices, toggling required fields, setting skip logic, or removing questions without resending the entire form

Instructions

Make targeted changes to an existing form without resending the whole question list.

This is the safe way to fix a typo, add a choice, or attach skip logic to a form that is already collecting data — everything not named is left exactly as it is.

Args (all optional, combine freely):

  • uid (string): the form to patch

  • set_label: [{name, label}] — relabel existing questions

  • set_hint: [{name, hint}]

  • set_required: [{name, required}]

  • set_relevant: [{name, relevant}] — set skip logic; empty string clears it

  • set_constraint: [{name, constraint, constraint_message}] — empty constraint clears it

  • add_choices: [{name, choices:[{name,label}]}] — append options to a select question

  • remove_questions: [names] — delete questions; removing a group removes its contents

  • redeploy (boolean, default true)

Returns: a per-change report of what was applied and what could not be found.

Examples:

  • Fix one label: set_label=[{name:"nom_etablissement", label:"Nom de l'établissement"}]

  • Add skip logic after the fact: set_relevant=[{name:"type_autre", relevant:"${type} = 'autre'"}]

  • Add a payment option: add_choices=[{name:"moyens_paiement", choices:[{name:"wave",label:"Wave"}]}]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uidYesAsset uid of the form to patch
redeployNoRedeploy so the change goes live
set_hintNoChange question hints in place
set_labelNoChange question labels in place
add_choicesNoAppend options to an existing select question's choice list
set_relevantNoSet or replace skip logic on existing questions. Pass an empty string to clear it.
set_requiredNoToggle whether questions are mandatory
set_constraintNoSet or replace a validation rule. Pass an empty constraint to clear it.
remove_questionsNoNames of questions to delete. Removing a group also removes everything inside it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With annotations already marking the tool as destructive and non-read-only, the description adds valuable nuance: 'everything not named is left exactly as it is', removing a group removes its contents, empty strings clear skip logic/constraints, and redeploy defaults to true. It also discloses that a per-change report of applied and unfound changes is returned.

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?

The description is well-structured: a brief purpose statement, a safety guarantee, a compact bullet list of all nine parameters with inline semantics, a return-value note, and three practical examples. There is no filler, and the length is justified by the number of parameters.

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 destructive, nine-parameter tool with no output schema, this is unusually complete: every operation is explained, return behavior is summarized, and examples show exact usage. It falls just short of excellent by mislabeling uid as optional and by not explicitly naming the full-update sibling tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantics like empty-string clearing, append-only choices, and group-removal behavior, plus concrete examples. However, the header 'Args (all optional, combine freely)' is inaccurate because uid is required by the schema, which prevents a higher score.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Make targeted changes to an existing form') and immediately differentiates from a full resend of the question list. It clearly names concrete use cases like fixing a typo, adding a choice, or attaching skip logic, making its purpose unmistakable.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: targeted changes to a form that is already collecting data, without resending the whole question list. However, it does not explicitly name kobo_update_form as the alternative for wholesale form updates, so the exclusion is implied rather than stated.

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