Nettskjema MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

submit_form_for_invitation

Submit a real Nettskjema form response using an invitation ID, recording answers against the invited respondent so the form owner can identify who replied.

Instructions

Deliver a response to the form a given invitation was issued for.

Same delivery as submit_form, addressed by invitation rather than by form: the response is recorded against that invitation, so the form's owner can see which invited respondent answered. The invitation is identified by its own numeric id, not by the form's. This submits a real answer to a real form; there is no draft or preview mode.

Each answer is checked against the vendored ClientAnswerDTO schema before the request is sent. A field the snapshot does not declare is passed through to the API, which has the final say.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`answers`	Yes	The answers to deliver, one object per answered element. The schema declares answerId, answerOptionIds, answered, date, datetime, id, ids, questionId, text, time, type and unAnswered; every one is optional. type must be one of SINGLE_OPTION, MULTIPLE_OPTIONS, TEXT, FILE, DATE_TIME, DATE, TIME or NOT_PROVIDED, and date, datetime and time are ISO 8601 strings.
`metadata`	No	Optional delivery metadata. The schema declares elapsedTime (integer) and tsdRespondent (an object with personal_identifier, provider, representation, sub, task_id and user_name). Omitted from the request entirely when not given.
`invitation_id`	Yes	The invitation's numeric ID. This is not a form ID.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that this is a real, non-draft submission with no preview, that answers are validated against the vendored ClientAnswerDTO schema before the request, and that undeclared fields are forwarded for the API to decide. It does not cover auth requirements, idempotency, or failure/retry behavior, keeping it at a solid 4.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and sibling contrast in the first two lines, then layers behavioral caveats. Slightly verbose in the second paragraph and the validation sentence, but every sentence carries information rather than filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the mutation semantics, validation behavior, and the id-vs-form-id distinction. Given no annotations, it comes close to complete, with only auth and error-handling context missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including that invitation_id is not a form ID. The description reinforces this distinction but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema, landing on the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Deliver a response to the form a given invitation was issued for') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_form by addressing mechanism ('addressed by invitation rather than by form'). An agent can route between submit_form and submit_form_for_invitation without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly contrasts with the submit_form alternative and clarifies the key selection condition (invitation's numeric id, not the form's), plus rules out draft/preview use. It stops short of naming a 'when not to use' condition beyond the submit_form contrast, so a 4 rather than 5.

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