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

GoCanvas MCP Server (read-only)

by kbates97
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

list_form_shared_departments

Retrieve all departments that a specific form is shared with by providing its form ID. Quickly see sharing permissions within your organization.

Instructions

List the Departments a Form is shared with.

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": "list_form_shared_departments"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
form_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior1/5

Does 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 basic purpose, lacking information on authentication requirements, read-only status, rate limits, or any side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It uses only necessary words for a simple one-parameter tool. However, it could include more context without sacrificing conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with an output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not mention return value format, pagination, error handling, or any security context. The presence of an output schema partially mitigates the need for return value description, but behavioral and usage gaps remain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal value by restating 'form_id: The identifier of the Form.' This does not clarify valid values, format, or how to obtain form IDs, relying entirely on the parameter name and type.

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 'List the Departments a Form is shared with.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Departments'), and distinguishes well from siblings like list_forms (lists all forms) and list_form_assigned_users (lists assigned users).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as list_form_assigned_users or get_form. No context about prerequisites or typical use cases is given.

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