Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
GoCanvas MCP Server (read-only)

GoCanvas MCP Server (read-only)

by kbates97
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_form

Retrieve a full form definition by providing its unique identifier. Use this to access detailed form structure and fields.

Instructions

Retrieve a single Form (including its full definition) by id.

Args: form_id: The identifier of the Form.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "form_id": "<form_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_form"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
form_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses that the tool returns the full definition of a Form, which is a read-only operation. No annotations are provided, but the description sufficiently covers the behavior for a simple retrieval tool. It does not contradict any 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?

The description is extremely concise with two lines and an Args section. Every sentence is necessary and there is no redundant information.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is complete enough. It states what is retrieved and the parameter needed. It could mention the read-only nature explicitly, but it's implied.

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 description includes an Args section explaining the form_id parameter as 'The identifier of the Form', adding meaning beyond the schema's type and title. However, the explanation is minimal and does not specify format or constraints.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a single Form by id and includes its full definition. The verb 'retrieve' and resource 'Form' are specific, and the scope 'including its full definition' distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_forms.

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 description implies usage for retrieving a specific form by id, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_forms for listing). No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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