Skip to main content
Glama
debanjanbasu

grr

by debanjanbasu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

forms.forms.setPublishSettings

Updates a form's publish settings to control whether it is published and accepting responses; legacy forms without publish settings are not supported.

Instructions

Updates the publish settings of a form. Legacy forms aren't supported because they don't have the publish_settings field [HTTP POST] — creates or triggers a change; refused under --readonly safety profiles. Returns the API's response resource as JSON — request body is a JSON SetPublishSettingsRequest object accepting publishSettings, updateMask; pass it via params or whole via body_file Siblings over the same resource: batchUpdate, create, get.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNoExtra KEY=VALUE query pairs for endpoints whose parameters Discovery does not describe.
formIdYes[URL path segment] Required. The ID of the form. You can get the id from Form.form_id field.
paramsNoParameter map merged into the request; typed parameters win.
dry_runNoReturn the request that would be sent, without sending it.
body_fileNoRead the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters. The body is a JSON SetPublishSettingsRequest object.
request_bodyNoRequest body of type SetPublishSettingsRequest: pass it via `params` (merged into the built body) or whole via `body_file`.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formIdNo
publishSettingsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / body_file / description
      Previous value: -"Read the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters."New value: +"Read the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters. The body is a JSON SetPublishSettingsRequest object."
    • addedInput schema / properties / request_body
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Request body of type SetPublishSettingsRequest: pass it via `params` (merged into the built body) or whole via `body_file`.",
+  "properties": {
+    "publishSettings": {
+      "properties": {
+        "publishState": {
+          "properties": {
+            "isAcceptingResponses": {
+              "type": "boolean"
+            },
+            "isPublished": {
+              "type": "boolean"
+            }
+          },
+          "type": "object"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "updateMask": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / formId / description
      Previous value: -"Required. The ID of the form. You can get the id from Form.form_id field."New value: +"[URL path segment] Required. The ID of the form. You can get the id from Form.form_id field."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "formId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "publishSettings": {
+      "properties": {
+        "publishState": {
+          "properties": {
+            "isAcceptingResponses": {
+              "type": "boolean"
+            },
+            "isPublished": {
+              "type": "boolean"
+            }
+          },
+          "type": "object"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the HTTP method (POST), that this mutates/creates or triggers a change, that it is refused under --readonly safety profiles, and that legacy forms are rejected. These are behavior traits an agent cannot get from the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and the most important constraint, and every sentence carries information (constraint, method, safety profile, body shape, siblings). Slightly dense with the bracketed [HTTP POST] and sibling enumeration, but no real filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and an output schema present, the description covers what an agent needs: mutation semantics, the readonly-profile refusal, the legacy-form limitation, and how the request body is constructed. Return values are rightly left to the output schema.

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 formId, query, params, dry_run, body_file and the nested request_body. The description reinforces that the body accepts publishSettings and updateMask and how to pass it, but adds little syntax or semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Updates the publish settings of a form') plus a capability constraint (legacy forms lack publish_settings). It names the sibling set (batchUpdate, create, get) but does not say how this tool differs from them, so differentiation is only partial.

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?

Provides one clear when-not condition (legacy forms) and explains the body-passing paths (params vs body_file), which is useful context. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over batchUpdate or create, and the sibling list is enumerated without routing rules.

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