Retrieve paginated submissions for a specific form, including contact details. Use it to review form responses and identify who submitted them.
List submissions for a specific form with contact details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (default 1) | |
| formId | Yes | Form UUID | |
| per_page | No | Results per page |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.71.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds one useful fact — that submissions come back enriched with contact details — but says nothing about read-only semantics, permissions, ordering, or total-count/pagination behavior, which matters for a 3-param list endpoint.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key resource and scope appear first. It is efficient but so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than optimal density.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only place to learn what a submission record looks like, how contacts are attached, or how paging is bounded. One sentence does not cover that for a list endpoint returning joined contact data.
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 formId, page and per_page are all documented in the schema itself. The description only echoes the formId requirement and adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond it, making 3 the correct baseline.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List submissions') scoped to 'a specific form', which is more precise than the name alone. It does not, however, differentiate itself from adjacent siblings like conduyt_get_form or conduyt_list_forms, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.
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 phrase 'for a specific form' implies that a formId is a prerequisite, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative sibling (e.g. get_form for the form definition). No pagination guidance either.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.