Skip to main content
Glama

furrow-forms

by com.furrowforms

Create upgrade link

create_upgrade_link

Use when a free team is blocked on the 3-project, 100-submission, or one-workspace limit, or when a human should upgrade to yearly ($199/year) so you can keep adding projects, workspaces, and storing new submissions. Returns a Stripe Checkout URL to hand the human. If the team is already yearly, omit product to get a Stripe Customer Portal URL, or pass product=expansion for a $99/year pack that adds 5,000 submissions/month. Do not change plan in the database — Stripe webhooks do that. Plans are capacity, not a feature ladder. Free: one workspace, 100 clean submissions/month pooled on the team, 3 active (non-archived) projects, 30-day submission retention, and email.footer_mode / branding.mode stay furrow. Yearly ($199/year): extra workspaces, 10,000 submissions/month, unlimited projects, 730-day retention, branding.mode furrow | off | agency. Expansion packs are $99/year each and add 5,000 submissions/month on a yearly account. MCP, webhooks, snippets, inheritance, Turnstile, and email templates stay available on free. Spam, honeypot, and rejected posts do not count. Use create_upgrade_link to hand a human a Stripe Checkout (or Customer Portal) URL. Pass product=expansion on a yearly team to add a pack. Operator tokens (all workspaces) must pass team_id from list_teams. Team-scoped tokens may omit team_id and cannot target another workspace.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
productNoyearly starts the $199/year plan; expansion adds a $99/year 5,000-submission pack to a yearly team.
team_idNoTeam id from list_teams. Required for operator tokens and OAuth logins; team-scoped frw_ tokens may omit it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With annotations only saying readOnly=false and idempotent=false, the description carries most of the behavioral burden and handles it well by explaining that Stripe webhooks perform the plan change and that the tool returns a handoff URL. It could go slightly further on whether each call creates a new Stripe session, but the key side-effect boundary is disclosed.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The core use case and return type are front-loaded, but the description becomes long with plan-by-plan feature lists, pricing, retention details, and feature exclusions. Much of this content is useful, but it goes beyond what is strictly needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description clearly states what is returned (Stripe Checkout URL or Customer Portal URL), the relevant product variants, and the authentication/token constraints. Given two optional parameters and several plan states, nothing needed to call the tool correctly is 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds operational meaning beyond the schema: it ties product=expansion to yearly teams, explains the free-block context for the yearly product, and clarifies operator vs team-scoped token requirements for team_id.

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 tool's deliverable ('Returns a Stripe Checkout URL to hand the human') and the exact conditions that call for it. It also distinguishes the Customer Portal URL and expansion-pack variant, so the purpose is unambiguous even among sibling tools.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use when a free team is blocked by plan limits, omit product for existing yearly teams, and pass product=expansion to add capacity. It also tells the agent what not to do ('Do not change plan in the database') and how token scope affects team_id.

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

All furrow-forms toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are clearly separated by resource and action (get_client vs list_clients vs create_client), and the descriptions explicitly warn against misuse. However, update_account and update_team both cover renaming a workspace/team, and get_account and get_project both return plan/usage/branding, creating a couple of genuinely confusing boundaries.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set overwhelmingly follows the snake_case verb_noun pattern: archive_client, create_form, get_submission, list_projects, rotate_project_inbox, test_webhook, etc. Minor deviations exist: bootstrap_site uses 'site' instead of 'project', update_team vs update_account introduces noun inconsistency, and upsert_project_webhook uses a different verb than the update_* family.

Tool Count2/5

With 27 tools, the server exceeds the 25-tool threshold that signals a too-large surface for an MCP server. While the broad scope (clients, projects, forms, submissions, teams, billing, webhooks) explains the count, there are redundant near-duplicates like update_account/update_team and bootstrap_site overlapping with multiple create tools, making the set feel bloated rather than curated.

Completeness3/5

The lifecycle coverage for clients, projects, and forms is solid with create, read, list, update, and archive operations. However, there is no unarchive (explicitly noted as unavailable), no submission management beyond read (no delete/export/update), and no webhook delivery history, leaving notable dead ends and gaps in the core workflow.

Resources