intakeq-mcp

list_intake_forms

List intake form submissions from IntakeQ. Filter by client, date, or status; every call is audit-logged for HIPAA compliance.

Instructions

List intake form submissions. PHI — every call is audit-logged.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_intake_forms"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`all`	No	Return all forms (not just submitted)
`page`	No	Page number (1-based)
`client`	No	Filter by client name or email
`endDate`	No	End date filter (YYYY-MM-DD)
`clientId`	No	Filter by client ID
`startDate`	No	Start date filter (YYYY-MM-DD)
`updatedSince`	No	Filter by last updated date (YYYY-MM-DD)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses that the tool handles PHI and that every call is audit-logged, which is valuable security behavior beyond the schema. However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects like default filtering to only submitted forms or pagination, leaving these details to the schema.

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 two sentences total, which is extremely concise. The first sentence states the purpose and the second adds a crucial PHI/audit warning, with no wasted words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description is minimal but the schema provides detailed parameter information, covering filtering options and pagination. However, with no output schema, the description does not clarify the return format or the default behavior around the 'all' parameter (i.e., whether non-submitted forms are included), which is a gap for a list tool.

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 schema descriptions cover all 7 parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning but also does not need to, as the schema is thorough and self-explanatory.

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's function with a specific verb ('list') and resource ('intake form submissions'), which effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_form' and 'send_intake_form'. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_form' or 'list_questionnaire_templates'. Usage is only implied by the verb 'list' and the tool name, without any stated exclusions or alternatives.

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