Retrieve form submissions with optional filters for form and status. Use pagination to control result size and view submission data and status.
List form submissions, optionally filtered by form and status; paginated. Returns submission rows with their data and status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| status | No | Optional status filter | |
| formIdOrSlug | No | Optional form id or slug to filter submissions by |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.73.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the operation is paginated and returns submission rows with data and status, which is useful. However, it does not address permissions, ordering, pagination mechanics, or any side-effect guarantees beyond the implied read-only nature of 'List'.
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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action and key modifiers (filtered, paginated, returns rows) are front-loaded, and every phrase adds value.
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?
Given four optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description gives enough to select and invoke the tool: it names the filters, pagination, and return content. It could be more explicit about the response shape or pagination parameters, but it is adequate for a straightforward list operation.
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 50%: status and formIdOrSlug have descriptions, while skip and limit do not. The description mentions 'filtered by form and status; paginated,' partially compensating for the undocumented parameters, but it does not explain skip/limit semantics beyond the word 'paginated.'
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 clearly states a specific verb and resource ('List form submissions') and adds filtering and pagination context. It is distinguishable from the singular get_form_submission by its plural scope and 'rows' return language, though it does not explicitly name any sibling tool.
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?
The description implies when to use it—when listing submissions with optional form/status filters—but gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative might be more appropriate. There is no mention of get_form_submission or other related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.