Skip to main content
Glama

furrow-forms

by com.furrowforms

List submissions

list_submissions
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use to inspect recent posts. Available on free and yearly. Pass project_id or form_id to infer the team; omit both and Operator tokens (all workspaces) must pass team_id from list_teams. Team-scoped tokens may omit team_id and cannot target another workspace. Free teams prune submissions after 30 days; yearly after 730 days. Do not use to read a single submission — call get_submission.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
spamNoWhich submissions to return. Defaults to clean.clean
limitNoPage size, max 100.
sinceNoISO 8601 timestamp; only submissions created after this instant.
cursorNoOpaque cursor from the previous page's next_cursor.
form_idNoOnly submissions to this form.
team_idNoTeam id from list_teams. Required for operator tokens and OAuth logins; team-scoped frw_ tokens may omit it.
project_idNoOnly submissions in this project.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses important behavior: data retention/pruning periods (30 days free, 730 days yearly), team inference from project_id/form_id, and workspace-scoping restrictions for team-scoped tokens. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence contributes decision-relevant information: plan availability, token scoping, retention, and the single-submission alternative. No filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

It covers purpose, auth/scoping, retention, and alternative routing, which is strong for a list tool with no output schema. The only gap is that it does not describe the return shape, default ordering, or default page size beyond what the schema hints through cursor and limit.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds cross-parameter meaning: project_id or form_id can infer the team, and team_id from list_teams is only required for Operator tokens/OAuth when no scoping parameter is provided. This is meaningful semantic context beyond the schema field descriptions.

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 opens with 'Use to inspect recent posts,' a clear verb+resource statement, reinforced by the name and title 'List submissions.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_submission with 'Do not use to read a single submission — call get_submission.'

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?

It explicitly states when not to use the tool and names the alternative: get_submission. It also gives actionable token-scoping guidance, telling Operator tokens when team_id is required and team-scoped tokens when it may be omitted.

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