form4api-mcp

verify_setup

Read-only

Run this diagnostic to confirm API key validity, backend reachability, and plan status; it reports pass/fail/warn with next steps, isolating whether issues stem from configuration, plan, or outage.

Instructions

Diagnostic check: confirms FORM4API_KEY is present and valid, the backend is reachable, and reports your current plan — returns a pass/fail/warn per check plus concrete next steps (where to get a key, how to upgrade) instead of a raw error. Run this first whenever another tool fails or returns a 401/402, to isolate whether the problem is configuration, plan, or a backend outage. No API key or parameters required.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "verify_setup"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that the tool returns 'pass/fail/warn per check plus concrete next steps' instead of raw errors, and that it can isolate configuration vs. plan vs. backend issues.

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?

Three sentences: first states purpose and return format, second tells when to use, third reassures no parameters. No wasted words, front-loaded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a zero-parameter, read-only diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description fully explains the return type (pass/fail/warn + next steps) and usage context. Nothing missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

No parameters in schema, and description confirms 'No API key or parameters required'. This adds clarity that nothing is needed, scoring baseline 4 for zero-param tool.

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?

Clearly states it performs a diagnostic check for API key validity, backend reachability, and plan status. It distinguishes itself from siblings like check_usage or get_public_stats by focusing on setup verification.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly tells when to use: 'Run this first whenever another tool fails or returns a 401/402'. Also notes that no API key or parameters are required, guiding the agent to use it as a first step.

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