google-workspace-mcp

forms_read

Retrieve a Google Form's structure, questions, and settings using its form ID. Access complete form details for review or further processing.

Instructions

Read a form's structure, questions, and settings.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "form_id": "<form_id>"
    },
    "name": "forms_read"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`form_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Read', which implies a non-mutating operation, but adds no detail about permissions, limitations, or edge cases. It essentially restates the tool name without enriching behavioral context.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the action and clearly enumerates the three aspects of the form being read. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple read tool with an output schema (which explains return values), the description adequately conveys what the tool does. It lists the specific elements (structure, questions, settings) that will be read, making it reasonably complete. Some context about access requirements is missing but not critical.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter form_id. The description does not explain how to obtain or format the form_id, nor does it connect the mentioned 'structure, questions, and settings' to the parameter. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 reads a form's structure, questions, and settings, using the specific verb 'Read' and identifying the resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like forms_list_responses (which reads responses) and forms_update_settings (which modifies settings).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Read', which is insufficient for a tool with many siblings.

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

Deploy Server