google_forms_responsesList responses submitted to a Google Form by form ID, with pagination support to page through large result sets.
List responses submitted to a form.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| formId | Yes | Form ID. | |
| account | No | Account nickname to use. | |
| pageSize | No | Max responses (default 100). | |
| pageToken | No | Token from a previous page's nextPageToken. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.95Input schema / properties / pageTokenAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Token from a previous page's nextPageToken.",
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.1.30Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List responses' implies a read operation, but it does not disclose permissions, ordering, whether answers are included, or any rate-limit or pagination behavior beyond the schema parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation, even if more details would improve other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a closely related sibling (google_forms_export_responses), the description is too thin. It does not explain return content, pagination behavior, or when export is the better alternative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about formId, account, pageSize, or pageToken, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: list responses submitted to a form. That is clear enough to distinguish it from mutation or form-editing siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from google_forms_export_responses.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives no guidance on when to use this tool rather than google_forms_export_responses, nor prerequisites such as permissions or form ownership. The only implied usage is that an agent should call it when it wants form responses.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.