WorkMobile MCP server

List forms

list_forms

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve all forms visible to the API user, including IDs, names, descriptions, live/mobile visibility, sub-form status, and last upload time. Filter for live forms or include sub-forms.

Instructions

Forms visible to the API user (GET /api/forms): ID, name, description, whether live and visible on mobile, whether it is a sub-form, and when data was last uploaded. The API returns the whole list without paging.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_forms"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`live_only`	No	Only live forms
`include_subforms`	No	Include sub-forms

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 7, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful detail that 'the API returns the whole list without paging', which is a real behavioral trait not captured by annotations.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the endpoint, scope, and return fields with no filler. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and disclosing the no-paging behavior. Only minor gaps remain (ordering, size expectations), but the definition is complete enough to call correctly.

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 both parameters (live_only, include_subforms) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Forms visible to the API user'), names the exact endpoint (GET /api/forms), and enumerates the returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_form_submissions 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The scoping phrase 'visible to the API user' and the two optional flags imply the filtering use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many sibling list tools. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server