get_custom_formFetches a specific custom form by UUID or slug so you can inspect its fields and configuration.
Retrieves a specific custom form by id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Required. ID of the custom form (fills `{id}` in /v1/custom_forms/{id}). Pass it as `id` -- this tool has no `custom_form_id` argument. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations — nothing about behavior on a missing/invalid id, whether related field sets or fields are included, or any permission requirement.
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 zero filler — the resource and lookup key come first. It is efficient but so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. What remains missing is any framing of what a custom form is in relation to form sets/fields or what an agent should expect when the id is unknown.
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% and the schema itself documents the uuid-or-slug alternatives and even warns that the argument is `id`, not `custom_form_id`. The description's 'by id' adds nothing beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.
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 (retrieves) and resource (custom form) plus the lookup key (by id), which clearly separates it from list_custom_forms and create/update_custom_form. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being told.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'by id' suggests it is the single-item lookup used when the form's id is already known, in contrast to list_custom_forms. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.