Skip to main content
Glama
OuattaraTech

kobotoolbox-mcp-server

by OuattaraTech
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Submit Data to a KoboToolbox Form

kobo_submit_data

Submit answers directly to a deployed Kobo form via API, bypassing the web form. Use to test forms end-to-end or migrate existing responses into Kobo.

Instructions

Send a response to a deployed form through the API, without going through the web form.

Use it to test a form end-to-end before sending enumerators out, or to migrate answers already collected on paper or in a spreadsheet.

Args:

  • uid (string): asset uid of the DEPLOYED form

  • answers (object): values keyed by the question's submission path, exactly as kobo_get_form reports it. A question inside a group is "group_name/question_name". select_multiple values are space-separated codes: "especes mobile_money". Dates are ISO: "2026-09-16". geopoint is "lat lon altitude accuracy".

  • count (number, default 1): submit the same answers several times, for load-testing only

Returns: the instance id Kobo assigned.

Notes:

  • Submitted rows are real data and count towards the form's submission total. Delete test rows with kobo_delete_submissions.

  • Attachments (photos, audio) cannot be sent this way — use the web form for those.

Error Handling:

  • A rejected submission almost always means a field name that does not exist in the form; check the exact paths with kobo_get_form.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uidYesAsset uid of the deployed form to submit to
countNoSubmit the same answers this many times — for load-testing a form, not for real data
answersYesAnswers keyed by the question's submission path, exactly as kobo_get_form reports it. A question inside a group is 'group_name/question_name'. select_multiple values are space-separated codes, e.g. 'especes mobile_money'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), but the description adds critical behavioral context: submitted rows are real data and count toward the form's submission total, repeated submissions create duplicates, attachments cannot be sent, and rejected submissions usually indicate invalid field paths. This goes well beyond the annotation signals.

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 organized into Args, Returns, Notes, and Error Handling, with the primary purpose front-loaded. Every section earns its place: parameter formats, side effects, exclusions, and failure diagnosis are all actionable and non-redundant.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description correctly states the return value ('the instance id Kobo assigned'). It also covers the most likely failure mode, the real-data consequence, and the unsupported attachment case. For a mutation tool with nested parameters and side effects, nothing essential is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaning the schema lacks: exact answer-path conventions for nested groups, space-separated select_multiple codes, ISO date format, geopoint format, and the explicit use of count for load-testing only. These practical examples help an agent construct valid parameter values more reliably than the schema alone.

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 and resource: 'Send a response to a deployed form through the API, without going through the web form.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from web-form submission and from sibling read/export tools like kobo_get_form, kobo_list_submissions, and kobo_get_submission.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: test a form end-to-end before sending enumerators, or migrate paper/spreadsheet answers. It also states exclusions and alternatives: attachments must use the web form, and test rows should be deleted with kobo_delete_submissions. This fully routes an agent to the correct tool and follow-up actions.

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