forms_surveys_getFetch a single form's settings by survey ID to review its configuration before updating or sharing it. Use the 24-character form ID from the surveys list.
One form's settings by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| survey_id | Yes | Form id (24-char hex), from ``surveys_list``. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.67.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description itself adds no behavioral context beyond "by id" – nothing about what the settings object contains, permission requirements, or failure modes.
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?
It is short and front-loaded with the resource, but it is a sentence fragment rather than a complete, self-contained statement, and its brevity comes at the cost of specification rather than from efficiency.
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 one-parameter read-only getter with no output schema, the description is minimally viable – "settings" hints at what comes back. However, with no output schema present, it could reasonably say more about the returned settings payload to be complete.
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%: the schema documents survey_id as a 24-char hex form id sourced from surveys_list. The description's "by id" merely restates that, so the baseline 3 applies with no added meaning.
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 fragment "One form's settings by id" conveys the verb (retrieve) and resource (a single form's settings) plus the lookup key, so the purpose is inferable. But it never distinguishes itself from siblings such as forms_surveys_list (retrieve many) or forms_surveys_update (modify settings), leaving the agent to guess which one to pick.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite, and no mention of an alternative tool. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the single-record read counterpart to forms_surveys_list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.