Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-server-google-forms

mcp-server-google-forms

by claude-book
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Apagar pergunta

delete_question

Remove a question from a Google Form by index. Verify the position with get_form first, as indexes count all items. Only deletes actual questions, not other item types.

Instructions

Remove a pergunta na posição indicada. As posições contam TODOS os itens (0 = primeiro) — confira antes com get_form. Recusa apagar itens que não sejam perguntas.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "formId": "<formId>",
      "index": "<index>"
    },
    "name": "delete_question"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
indexYesPosição do item (começa em 0; veja as posições com get_form)
formIdYesID do formulário

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavior: positions count all items (not just questions), starting at 0, and that the tool refuses to delete non-question items. This goes beyond the basic action but doesn't mention irreversibility or error conditions.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and efficient in conveying constraints.

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?

The description covers core action, indexing caveat, and safety restriction, which is adequate for a simple two-parameter deletion tool. It lacks explicit error behavior for invalid indices but is otherwise complete.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both formId and index; the tool description's indexing note is partially redundant with the schema's index description. It adds no new parameter-specific details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool removes a question at a specified position, using a specific verb ('Remover') and resource ('pergunta'). It also differentiates from siblings by specifying that only questions are affected, not other form items.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It advises checking with get_form before deletion to confirm positions, and explicitly states the tool refuses to delete non-question items, giving a clear when-not. However, it doesn't name specific alternative tools for deleting other item types.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools