LimeSurvey MCP Server

Get survey field map

limesurvey_get_fieldmap

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return the survey response field map.

Instructions

Return the survey response field map.

Calls LimeSurvey RemoteControl method get_fieldmap. Authentication uses the configured service account; do not provide a session key.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`language`	No	LimeSurvey language code; null uses the survey default.
`survey_id`	Yes	Numeric LimeSurvey survey ID.
`response_format`	No	Output format. JSON preserves the complete structured result; Markdown is optimized for reading.	json

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`method`	Yes
`result`	Yes
`warnings`	No
`truncated`	No
`truncation_message`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.6.0Oct 14, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / warnings

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "$ref": "#/definitions/__schema0"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

First observedv1.3.1Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the RemoteControl method name and the service-account auth model with no session key required, which an agent needs to call it correctly.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three short sentences, front-loading the purpose before the method and auth notes. Every sentence earns its place, though there is minor redundancy between 'Return the ... field map' and the title.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. The description covers purpose, method, and auth, making it essentially complete, with only the lack of sibling routing as a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters (survey_id, language, response_format) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Return the survey response field map'), which is clear and distinct from property getters like get_survey_properties. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling read tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Provides an authentication guideline ('do not provide a session key') which is useful context. But it gives no guidance on when to use this over alternatives like get_survey_properties or get_response_ids, leaving usage to inference.

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

Deploy Server