Skip to main content
Glama

Clipform

by io.github.Clipform

Get Craft Guide

clipform_get_guide
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve craft knowledge for building a specific form type. Returns question psychology, difficulty curves, narration style, scoring setup, and writing principles as markdown. Does NOT return a step-by-step build workflow - use clipform_get_workflow for that.

Available types: quiz, survey, interview, funnel, testimonial, application, booking, intake, lead-capture. Aliases also accepted: trivia → quiz, test → quiz, exam → quiz, feedback → survey, poll → survey, nps → survey, questionnaire → survey, case-study → interview, callout → interview, lead-gen → funnel, qualification → funnel, lead-magnet → funnel, story → testimonial, review → testimonial, job-application → application, admission → application, enrollment → application, grant → application, registration → booking, signup → booking, event → booking, rsvp → booking, workshop → booking, client-intake → intake, onboarding → intake, enquiry → intake, inquiry → intake, new-client → intake, lead → lead-capture, lead-form → lead-capture, enquiry-form → lead-capture, waitlist → lead-capture, get-a-quote → lead-capture. Quiz variants (optional): personality, comprehension, composition - appends variant-specific addendum to the base quiz guide.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesForm type to get the craft guide for (accepts aliases like 'feedback' → survey)
contextYesDescribe the user's underlying goal in one sentence - not the tool you're calling.
variantNoQuiz sub-variant. Only used when type is 'quiz'. Omit for a standard scored quiz.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / context
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Describe the user's underlying goal in one sentence - not the tool you're calling.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "type"
-]New value: +[
+  "type",
+  "context"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the return format as markdown, detailing the information payload, and clarifying the exclusion of workflow content. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 opening sentences are front-loaded with the core purpose and the crucial differentiation from clipform_get_workflow. The alias list is long but justified because alias resolution is essential for correct invocation. Slight redundancy exists in listing types twice, but overall the content is dense and purposeful.

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?

For a read-only, idempotent knowledge-retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the result contains, its format, the accepted inputs, aliases, variants, and the key sibling exclusion. An agent has everything needed to select and correctly call this tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description significantly enriches parameter understanding: it expands the 'type' parameter with the full list of supported types, an extensive alias map, and further clarifies the optional 'variant' parameter with its valid values and purpose. This is far more informative than the schema alone.

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?

States a precise verb and resource: 'Retrieve craft knowledge for building a specific form type' and enumerates the concrete knowledge categories returned. Explicitly distinguishes itself from clipform_get_workflow, so an agent can differentiate it from the most closely related sibling without ambiguity.

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?

Directly states what the tool does not do and names the correct alternative: 'Does NOT return a step-by-step build workflow - use clipform_get_workflow for that.' It also provides the complete set of accepted types, aliases, and optional variant guidance, making the selection criteria explicit and actionable.

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

All Clipform 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: form CRUD, node management, media upload/attach, rendering, search, and guidance retrieval are all separable. The main overlap is among the three render tools (clipform_generate_video, clipform_render_video_template, clipform_render_composition), but their descriptions include explicit disambiguation guidance, so an agent can correctly choose. clipform_get_guide and clipform_get_workflow are also similar but clearly differentiated.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent clipform_<verb>_<noun> pattern throughout, e.g., clipform_create_form, clipform_add_node, clipform_update_node, clipform_delete_node. Minor deviations exist: clipform_whoami is not verb_noun, and get_more_tools lacks the clipform_ prefix, but these are edge cases and the overall convention is highly predictable.

Tool Count3/5

34 tools is on the heavy side for a single MCP server. The server covers a broad domain (form creation, node editing, media management, video rendering, TTS, search, guidance, imports, responses), so the count is defensible, but it is above the typical well-scoped range and may add navigation overhead.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle: create/read/update/delete forms and nodes, media upload/attach/delete, multiple render paths with status checking, TTS generation, music/image/video search, form import, response retrieval, and workflow/guide knowledge. The main gap is lack of a direct branching-logic editor (option-based branching is only in the dashboard), but the API consciously documents that limitation and the rest of the lifecycle is complete.

Resources