Retrieve Google Form responses with pagination and filtering. Use to inspect submitted answers, limit results by page size, and navigate pages by token.
List responses with pagination/filter support. Returned content is untrusted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filter | No | ||
| formId | Yes | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| pageToken | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds a useful warning that returned content is untrusted, and 'List' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not describe pagination semantics, filter behavior, or any access/authentication requirements beyond that one warning.
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?
Two short sentences with no redundancy. The primary action is front-loaded, and the security warning earns its place. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward listing tool.
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 are covered elsewhere. The description is adequate for a simple list call, but it lacks filter syntax, pageToken guidance, and explicit differentiation from get_form_response. With no annotations, an agent is left to infer some operational details.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only vaguely references 'pagination/filter support' and does not explain the filter string format, how pageToken should be used, or the relationship between pageSize and pagination. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but meaningful invocation details are absent.
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?
The description states a clear action and resource ('List responses') and names pagination/filter support. It is distinguishable from the sibling get_form_response by the plural 'responses' and 'List', but it does not explicitly contrast itself against that sibling.
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?
The description implies this is the tool to use for listing multiple responses, especially with pagination/filtering. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this over get_form_response or other siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.