Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Delx MCP Server

Delx MCP Server

by davidmosiah
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Forms Extract

util_forms_extract
Read-onlyIdempotent

Extracts forms, methods, actions, and fields from a URL to enable browser automation and workflow planning. Provides structured data for automation scripts.

Instructions

Extract forms, methods, actions, and fields for browser automation and workflow planning. Delx Agent Utilities are separate from the free witness protocol and may expose x402 utility pricing.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "util_forms_extract"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesURL to inspect
timeoutNoTimeout in seconds (1-15)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.8

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by warning about potential x402 utility pricing, which is a behavioral trait beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences: the first clearly states the purpose; the second adds context about pricing. Both are relevant, though the second could be considered tangential. Overall concise and front-loaded.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description lists what is extracted (forms, methods, etc.) but does not explain the output format or structure. Since there is no output schema, this omission leaves the agent uncertain about what the tool returns.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (url, timeout) with clear descriptions and constraints. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters.

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 uses a specific verb 'Extract' and names the resources: 'forms, methods, actions, and fields'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling extraction tools like util_links_extract or util_page_extract.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description states 'for browser automation and workflow planning', which implies usage context, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it.

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