Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
workspace-mcp

workspace-mcp

by theolefort-cyber
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Get Form

get_form
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a Google Form by providing the form ID and the user's Google email address.

Instructions

Get a form.

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": {
      "user_google_email": "<user_google_email>",
      "form_id": "<form_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_form"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
user_google_emailYesThe user's Google email address. Required.
form_idYesThe ID of the form to retrieve.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.21.3

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. However, it also adds no behavioral context such as authentication requirements, scope of the returned form, or relationship to Google user email.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short, but this reads as under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It contains only a restatement of the tool name and provides no useful elaboration.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The schema covers parameters completely, annotations cover safety semantics, and an output schema exists, so the tool is minimally callable. Still, the description omits any context about the form object versus form responses, which limits completeness for an agent navigating many form-related siblings.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema fully documents both required parameters (user_google_email and form_id) with clear descriptions, so the description does not need to compensate. It also adds no extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource: retrieve a form. It is clear about the core operation, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_form_response or list_form_responses, which also involve forms.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to prefer get_form_response, or what distinguishes retrieving a form definition from retrieving responses.

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