Skip to main content
Glama
backsoul

Dynamic Form MCP

by backsoul

get-form

Retrieve the structure of an existing dynamic web form using its unique identifier (UUID) to access and manage form configurations.

Instructions

Obtiene la estructura de un formulario existente mediante su UUID

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uuidYesUUID del formulario

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'get-form' tool. It creates a DynamicForm instance with the provided UUID, calls getFormulary() to retrieve the form structure, and returns it as a JSON string or an error message.
    async ({ uuid }) => {
      const form = new DynamicForm(uuid);
      const { formulary, error } = await form.getFormulary();
      if (error) {
        return { content: [{ type: "text", text: `Error al obtener el formulario: ${error}` }] };
      }
      return { content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(formulary, null, 2) }] };
    }
  • The input schema for the 'get-form' tool, defining a required 'uuid' parameter as a UUID string.
    { uuid: z.string().uuid().describe("UUID del formulario") },
  • src/index.ts:62-74 (registration)
    The registration of the 'get-form' tool via server.tool(), specifying the name, description, input schema, and handler function.
    server.tool(
      "get-form",
      "Obtiene la estructura de un formulario existente mediante su UUID",
      { uuid: z.string().uuid().describe("UUID del formulario") },
      async ({ uuid }) => {
        const form = new DynamicForm(uuid);
        const { formulary, error } = await form.getFormulary();
        if (error) {
          return { content: [{ type: "text", text: `Error al obtener el formulario: ${error}` }] };
        }
        return { content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(formulary, null, 2) }] };
      }
    );
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this retrieves form structure, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what 'estructura' entails (e.g., fields, metadata). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from constraints, but it remains appropriately concise for a simple retrieval tool.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'estructura' includes (e.g., fields, validation rules), potential errors, or the return format. For a tool with no structured behavioral or output documentation, the description should provide more context to compensate, which it fails to do adequately.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'uuid' parameter fully documented as 'UUID del formulario'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond this, such as where to find the UUID or format specifics. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('obtiene' - gets/retrieves) and the resource ('estructura de un formulario existente' - structure of an existing form), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-answers' or 'create-form', but the focus on form structure is reasonably distinct. The description avoids tautology by specifying what is retrieved rather than just restating the name.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-answers' or 'create-form'. It mentions the UUID requirement, but this is already covered in the input schema. There are no explicit instructions on prerequisites, error conditions, or appropriate contexts for selecting this tool over others.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/backsoul/dynamicform-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server