google_forms_responsesRetrieve submitted form responses by providing the form ID. Use to access and review collected answers from a Google Form.
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). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.30Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List responses', implying a read operation, but does not mention pagination (pageSize parameter), ordering, or any potential side effects. There is no mention of authentication or account requirements, leaving significant behavioral gaps.
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, concise sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation, though it lacks the detail that would make it more useful. It is front-loaded with the core action, which is good.
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?
Given the tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the return format, pagination behavior, or any constraints beyond the schema. An agent would need to infer these details or make assumptions, which is a significant gap.
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% for all three parameters, so the schema already documents formId, account, and pageSize. The description adds no additional parameter context; it simply restates the overall purpose. This meets the baseline of 3 for tools with full schema coverage.
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 clearly states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('responses submitted to a form'), making it distinct from sibling tools like google_forms_get (which retrieves form metadata) and google_forms_create. It is unambiguous and actionable.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, such as needing a form ID, nor does it contrast with related tools like google_forms_get or google_forms_add_question. An agent must infer usage from the schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.