Skip to main content
Glama
jhauga

mcp-chat-cards

by jhauga
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Create form card

create_form_card

Render an interactive form card in chat to collect user input. Submitting the fields sends their values back as the next prompt, optionally formatted with a prompt template.

Instructions

Render a form card the user fills in to give the conversation context and direction. Submitting sends the values back to the chat as the next prompt (optionally shaped by promptTemplate with {{fieldName}} tokens).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYes
fieldsYes
subtitleNo
descriptionNo
submitLabelNo
contextActionsNoRight-click menu actions the model anticipates being useful. Choosing one sends its prompt to the conversation; use {{selection}} to include the user's selected text.
promptTemplateNoPrompt sent on submit; {{fieldName}} tokens are replaced with values

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cardYes
partsYesSplit state, present on EVERY card result so one completeness check works for all card types. Cards that cannot split always report {current:1,total:1,hasMore:false}; create_markdown_card and create_code_tour_card pack oversized content into parts and can report more. Read hasMore rather than the card title to decide whether content was withheld.
displayNoPresent only when the host is not mounting this server's MCP Apps template (see MCP_CHAT_CARDS_RENDER): the card ships as a ready-made visualizer widget instead.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.0-alpha.1.0.1
    • addedOutput schema / properties / display
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "description": "Present only when the host is not mounting this server's MCP Apps template (see MCP_CHAT_CARDS_RENDER): the card ships as a ready-made visualizer widget instead.",
+  "properties": {
+    "action": {
+      "description": "What the caller must do to put the card in front of the user",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "loading_messages": {
+      "description": "show_widget loading_messages",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "shown": {
+      "description": "False: the user cannot see this card until action is taken",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "title": {
+      "description": "show_widget title (snake_case)",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "widget_code": {
+      "description": "show_widget widget_code, passed unchanged",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "shown",
+    "action",
+    "title",
+    "loading_messages",
+    "widget_code"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.1.3-alpha
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • removedOutput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • addedOutput schema / properties / parts
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "description": "Split state, present on EVERY card result so one completeness check works for all card types. Cards that cannot split always report {current:1,total:1,hasMore:false}; create_markdown_card and create_code_tour_card pack oversized content into parts and can report more. Read hasMore rather than the card title to decide whether content was withheld.",
+  "properties": {
+    "current": {
+      "description": "Part number this result rendered (1-based)",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "hasMore": {
+      "description": "True when content was withheld; call again with part: current + 1",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "total": {
+      "description": "How many parts the content splits into",
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "current",
+    "total",
+    "hasMore"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
    • changedOutput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "card"
-]New value: +[
+  "card",
+  "parts"
+]
  3. First observedv0.0.0-alpha

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the critical side effect: submitting returns the values to the chat as the next prompt, optionally shaped by promptTemplate. That is the behavior an agent most needs to know for an interactive, non-read-only tool, though it says nothing about blocking, rendering timing, or cancellation.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, front-loading the render action and follow-on submit behavior. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the submit-to-prompt flow is covered. Still, a 7-parameter interactive tool with no annotations and only 29% schema coverage leaves the non-promptTemplate parameters (fields, submitLabel, contextActions semantics) under-explained.

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 only 29% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains promptTemplate and its {{fieldName}} substitution tokens, which is real added meaning, but title, fields, subtitle, description, submitLabel and contextActions receive no explanation in the description (contextActions is only covered inside the schema).

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 ('Render a form card') and adds the interaction model: the user fills it in to give the conversation context and direction. An agent can distinguish it from the other card creators by the 'form' noun, though the description never explicitly contrasts it with siblings like create_list_card or create_prompt_refine_card.

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?

It implies the usage context ('to give the conversation context and direction'), which is a genuine hint about when to reach for a form rather than a static card. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative among the many sibling card tools, so selection still requires inference.

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