Skip to main content
Glama
meetergo

meetergo MCP server

Official
by meetergo

Create a routing form

create_routing_form

Create a routing form or funnel using existing data fields to qualify respondents and route them to meetings, pages, or actions based on their answers, with a fallback default route.

Instructions

Create a routing form or funnel. Fields reference existing reusable data fields and qualifiers route on the answers. A qualifier with isFallback true provides the default route.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
slugNoPublic share link segment, at cal.meetergo.com/f/<slug>
fieldsNoExisting data fields to show: [{ dataFieldId, order }]
skipFormNoRoute on programmatic answers without rendering the form. REQUIRED (true) when the form backs Mira web-chat qualification: the widget submits answers conversationally, before any name exists, and qualification rejects nameless submissions unless skipForm is set.
qualifiersNoRouting rules: { routingAction, meetingTypeId?, expression, isFallback? }. routingAction is one of eventRedirect, customPage, externalRedirect, contactForm, requestCallback, instantCall, formRedirect.
funnelStepsNoSteps, each with its own dataFields
structureTypeYesFORM_ONLY is the plain form; the FUNNEL variants add steps.
showProgressBarNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoThe formId other tools take
nameNo
slugNo
fieldsNoFields shown on the form
skipFormNo
publicUrlNo
qualifiersNoRouting rules and their destinations
funnelStepsNoFunnel steps, each with its own fields
structureTypeNo
showProgressBarNo
Install Server

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by explaining that qualifiers route on answers and that isFallback provides the default route. It aligns with the annotations, which mark this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent write operation, without needing to restate those cues.

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 concise and front-loaded: the primary purpose appears in the first sentence, and the next two sentences add only high-value routing semantics. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

The schema is rich, covers most parameters in detail, and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. The main gap is the lack of guidance for choosing this tool over related creation tools, but the available structured data makes the description complete enough for correct invocation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema already documents most parameters, but the description adds meaning by tying fields to existing reusable data fields and clarifying isFallback semantics. This is especially valuable because the qualifiers nested object is only loosely described in the schema and lacks formal property definitions.

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?

The description clearly states the action and resource: 'Create a routing form or funnel.' It also adds distinguishing details about fields referencing existing data fields and qualifiers routing on answers, which separates it from generic create tools. It does not explicitly contrast it with sibling create_qualification_form, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit: the description indicates the tool is for building routing forms/funnels and that fields should reference existing data fields. It does not state when to prefer this over create_qualification_form or provide exclusion criteria, so the agent must infer when this tool is the right choice.

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

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/meetergo/meetergo-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server