Retrieve a form definition by provider reference to resolve provider-linked forms for automation and integration workflows.
Get form by providerRef Retrieve the form definition of a form with the specified provider reference. GET /form-service/api/forms/provider/{ref}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | Provider Reference (path) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the concrete REST path, which gives useful context about what is being read, but says nothing about behavior on a missing/invalid ref or what the returned definition contains.
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?
Three short lines, front-loaded with the operation and the endpoint. Slight redundancy: line one ('Get form by providerRef') and line two ('Retrieve the form definition ... with the specified provider reference') say the same thing, so one sentence could have been dropped.
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?
For a one-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, very little is required, and no output schema means return values needn't be explained. The remaining gap is the key disambiguation an agent actually needs: what a 'provider reference' is and how this differs from the many sibling form-fetch tools.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'ref' is documented as 'Provider Reference (path)'. The description only repeats that, adding no syntax, format, or example guidance for what a provider reference looks like versus a form id. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema carries the meaning.
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?
States a specific verb and resource plus a scope qualifier: retrieve a form definition identified by *provider reference* (path), at a named endpoint. That is clear on its own. However, the sibling list contains many near-identical form readers (form_get_form, form_fetch_form, form_fetch_customized_form, form_fetch_model), and the description never contrasts itself with any of them.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is named. The agent must infer from the parameter name alone that this is the lookup-by-provider-ref path rather than form_get_form or form_fetch_form. No prerequisites (auth, required scopes) are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.