Lists web forms with submission counts, letting you filter by active status or search by name. Use it to review form performance and manage active or inactive forms.
List web forms with submission counts. Filter by active status or search by name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (default 1) | |
| search | No | Search forms by name | |
| per_page | No | Results per page | |
| is_active | No | Filter by active/inactive status |
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 behavioral burden. It mentions submission counts, which is useful output context, but it does not state read-only safety, pagination behavior, default inclusion of inactive forms, or permissions.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and followed immediately by the available filters. There is no wasted text.
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 simple listing tool, the core operation and filters are covered. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say more about read-only behavior, pagination, and what the returned form records contain beyond submission counts.
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 the schema already documents page, search, per_page, and is_active. The description reinforces the search and active-status filters but adds little beyond the schema for page/per_page pagination semantics.
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 web forms,' and adds a useful output detail: submission counts. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_form or list_form_submissions, so it is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
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 implies when to use the tool by naming two supported filters: active status and name search. It does not explicitly say when to use this instead of get_form for a single form or list_form_submissions for submissions, so usage guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.