List Superforms Asks
list_asksRead-onlyIdempotent
List recent asks for a provided private agent token.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agentToken | Yes |
Superforms
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint (false). The description adds the behavioral hint 'recent' (time constraint) and clarifies the token requirement, adding value beyond annotations without contradiction.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though it could benefit from a bit more detail on the time scope ('recent').
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?
The tool has no output schema and only one parameter. The description does not clarify what 'recent' means, what the response includes, or any additional context about the token. For a simple tool, this lack of detail leaves gaps in agent understanding.
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 sole parameter 'agentToken' has 0% schema description coverage. The tool description mentions 'provided private agent token' but does not explain the parameter's format, origin, or expected values, leaving the agent to infer meaning from context.
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 verb 'List' and the resource 'asks' (Superforms Asks), and specifies it is 'for a provided private agent token,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_my_forms.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when an agent token is available, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_my_forms for personal forms, create_ask for creation). No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
There is clear overlap between several tools: create_ask is explicitly a backward-compatible alias for create_form, making them nearly indistinguishable. get_my_form_responses vs get_responses and watch_my_form_responses vs watch_ask also serve similar purposes with only subtle differences (form ownership vs generic ask). The creation session tools (join_creation_session, update_creation_session) and creation tools (create_form, create_feedback_form) have moderately clear boundaries but could confuse agents about when to use session tools vs direct creation.
Naming Consistency3/5
The naming mostly follows a verb_noun pattern (create_form, list_asks, watch_ask) and many share a consistent 'my_' prefix for owned resources. However, the aliasing (create_ask), the distinction between 'ask' and 'form' terminology, and create_feedback_form vs create_form introduce inconsistency in domain vocabulary. Watch_ask vs watch_my_form_responses and get_responses vs get_my_form_responses use parallel but not fully consistent naming.
Tool Count4/5
11 tools is a reasonable count for a form lifecycle server. However, three tools are essentially redundant aliases or near-duplicates (create_ask, get_responses, and possibly watch_ask given HTTP bridge equivalents), which could be consolidated. The count is not excessive or too thin, but the effective surface is smaller than 11 distinct tools.
Completeness3/5
The server covers creation (create_form, create_feedback_form), listing (list_asks, list_my_forms), reading responses (get_responses, get_my_form_responses), and real-time watching (watch_ask, watch_my_form_responses). However, there is no tool for updating or deleting existing forms, and no tool for closing/archiving a form. The creation-session tools are present but lack a corresponding read/view for drafts. The domain is form lifecycle, and update/delete operations for published forms are notable gaps.