Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Mautic MCP Connector

Mautic MCP Connector

by si-essence
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

mautic_get_form

Read-only

Retrieve a single Mautic form by ID to inspect its details, fields, and configuration.

Instructions

Get one form. GET /api/forms/{id}.

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": "mautic_get_form"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
form_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does 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 elsewhere. The description adds only the REST path "GET /api/forms/{id}", with no information about error behavior for missing forms, auth requirements, or what a form record contains.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. The second sentence largely restates the first in HTTP terms, so it is near-minimal rather than perfectly economical.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read tool with no output schema, the description should indicate what a form record returns or how a not-found case behaves, and it does neither. Safety semantics are covered by annotations, but the return-value burden falls entirely on the description here and is unaddressed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single form_id parameter is documented only by an anyOf of integer or numeric string. The path template "{id}" weakly maps form_id to the URL segment, but no meaning is added about accepted formats, where IDs come from, or that string IDs must match ^[0-9]+$.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb ("Get") and resource ("form") scoped to a single record, which distinguishes it implicitly from the sibling mautic_list_forms. It falls short of 5 because it never names that sibling or otherwise states the singular-vs-list distinction explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as mautic_list_forms or mautic_list_form_submissions. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the single-record lookup path.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools