Lists submitted responses for a given form, newest first, with pagination support.
Lists a form's submitted responses, newest first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | No | Opaque pagination cursor from a previous page; omit for the first page. | |
| formId | Yes | Form whose responses to list. | |
| pageSize | No | Number of items per page, 1-200 (default 50). Out of range is rejected, not clamped. |
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=true, so safety is covered. The description contributes the meaningful behavioral detail that results come back newest-first, but says nothing about pagination traversal, whether all responses or only some are returned, or any scope/permission constraints. Useful addition, incomplete profile.
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 front-loaded sentence with the ordering constraint attached, no filler. Every word earns its place.
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 simple read-only list tool with fully documented parameters, the description is adequate but leaves the response shape undefined (no output schema exists, so the item structure of a form response is never described) and does not explain pagination semantics beyond what the cursor parameter implies.
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 100%; formId, cursor, and pageSize are all documented in the schema, including the 1-200 range with rejection-not-clamping behavior. The description adds nothing beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ('Lists a form's submitted responses') plus an ordering guarantee ('newest first'), which is enough to distinguish it from gorelo_list_forms (forms themselves) without opening either schema. It stops short of naming the sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally 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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives such as gorelo_list_forms or link-creation tools. The use case is only inferrable from the one-line purpose statement, which is implicit guidance at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.