Generates a shareable link for a specific form so recipients can fill it in and submit, optionally tied to a task or ticket.
Creates a link someone can use to fill in and submit this form.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Request body for issuing a submission link. | |
| formId | Yes | Form the link is for. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds that the output is a shareable fill-and-submit link, which is useful, but omits whether the link expires, is single-use, or requires auth — meaningful traits for a link-issuing mutation.
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?
One clean sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably under-specified rather than padded, so brevity is a virtue here rather than a flaw in structure.
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?
For a mutation tool with a nested body object and no output schema, the description should at least say what comes back (a URL?) and how TaskId versus TicketId scoping affects the generated link. Neither is covered, leaving the agent to infer the result shape entirely.
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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents formId, TaskId, and TicketId including their mutual exclusivity. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema carries all the weight.
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?
The description states a specific verb (creates) and resource (a link for filling in and submitting a form), which is clearly distinct from every sibling tool listed. It stops short of naming which workflow or related endpoint it pairs with, but an agent can identify the operation immediately.
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?
It says what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to reach for it versus alternatives such as gorelo_list_form_responses or gorelo_list_forms. There are no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no mention of how TaskId/TicketId scoping should drive the choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.