Retrieve a single form's complete details, including fields, settings, and submission count, by passing its id or slug. Provides all needed data to understand or work with that form.
Get one form's full details (fields, settings, submission count) by id or slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| idOrSlug | No | The form's id or slug (from list_forms) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.73.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavior burden. It conveys a read operation and lists the return contents, but it does not mention error behavior, permissions, or side-effect guarantees beyond the 'Get' verb.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Each element—'full details', the parenthetical content, and 'by id or slug'—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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the retrieval target and the returned content categories, while the schema supplies the parameter source. It omits only secondary context like auth or error details, which are not required to call it correctly.
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 one parameter idOrSlug already has a description mentioning id/slug and list_forms. The description's 'by id or slug' duplicates that information without adding format constraints or additional semantic detail.
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 description uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the resource ('one form'), and enumerates the payload ('fields, settings, submission count'). It also specifies the lookup method ('by id or slug'), which clearly distinguishes it from list_forms and get_form_submission.
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 exclusionary guidance naming alternatives. The phrasing 'one form's full details' implies the use case of retrieving a single form rather than listing forms or fetching submissions, but does not state it directly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.