mcp-chat-cards

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Mirror a website form

mirror_web_form

Extract a form from any public web page and render it as an interactive card. User submissions become structured data for submitting the original website form.

Instructions

Fetch a public web page, extract one of its forms, and render it as an interactive card in the conversation. When the user submits the card, the values return to the chat as a structured payload for the submit_web_form tool, so a model-created task can submit the actual website form.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes
`title`	No	Card title override
`formIndex`	No	Which form on the page, default 0

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`card`	Yes
`parts`	Yes	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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv0.1.3-alphaAug 21, 2026

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"
+]

First observedv0.0.0-alphaAug 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the side effects (fetching, extracting, rendering, returning a structured payload on submission) and a limitation ('public web page'). It omits details like rate limits, failure behavior, or handling of pages without forms, but the core workflow is transparent.

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?

The description is compact and well-ordered: action, object, output flow, and downstream purpose. Every clause contributes indispensable information, with no filler or redundantly repeated schema details.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the absence of annotations, the description gives the agent a complete mental model of the execute-and-submit loop, and the presence of an output schema covers return details. It remains slightly thin on edge cases like 'page has no forms' or 'multiple matching forms,' but it is still sufficiently complete for correct tool selection and invocation.

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?

The schema already documents title and formIndex, and the description adds some contextual meaning—especially that the URL must point to a public page and that a single form is extracted. However, it mostly relies on the schema for parameter specifics rather than enriching them, so the added value is moderate.

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?

The description names a specific verb-resource pair: fetch a public web page, extract one of its forms, and render it as an interactive card. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_web_form tool by describing how the card payload feeds into that separate submission step.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description clearly conveys when to use the tool: when a website form should be mirrored into the conversation so a model-created task can later submit it. It even names the follow-up tool (submit_web_form), which gives strong routing context, though it does not explicitly state exclusions such as 'use create_form_card for manually built forms.'

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