gambot_list_formsList web forms from your Gambot account to review submissions, track lead capture, and manage form data for marketing and onboarding workflows.
List web forms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and gives no information about pagination, return format, authentication requirements, or whether results are limited. It does not contradict annotations (none exist), but it fails to reveal any behavioral traits 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 extremely short (three words), but it is under-specified rather than concise. It essentially repeats the title and adds no value. Every sentence should earn its place; this one does not, as it provides no information beyond the tool's name. There is no front-loading of useful details because there are none.
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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke it. The agent does not know what a 'web form' is in this context, what the response structure looks like, or how to paginate using the limit parameter. Sibling tools like gambot_get_form and gambot_get_form_submissions further complicate selection, but the description offers no clarifications.
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?
The schema has one parameter (limit, integer, max 1000) with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention the limit parameter at all, nor does it explain its purpose or effect. Since the schema lacks descriptions, the description must compensate but does not, leaving the agent without any understanding of how to use the limit parameter.
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 'List web forms' clearly states a specific verb (list) and resource (web forms), distinguishing it from sibling tools like gambot_get_form (retrieve a single form) and gambot_get_form_submissions (get submissions). It is not a tautology because it names the resource explicitly, though it lacks additional qualifiers such as 'all' or 'available'.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention, for example, that gambot_get_form should be used for a single form, or that gambot_get_form_submissions is for submissions. The description provides no contextual cues for selection among the many list/get siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.