Skip to main content
Glama

Clipform

by io.github.Clipform

List form responses

clipform_get_responses
Read-onlyIdempotent

List a Clipform form's individual responses (submissions) with time filtering - complements clipform_get_results (aggregates). Answers questions like 'what came in during the last 24 hours', 'what's the longest answer', 'what did people say'. Text answers only: contact details, file uploads, payments, and audio/video answers are redacted to placeholders; those are viewable in the dashboard (the responses URL from clipform_get_form). Responses are sorted newest first unless sort: 'oldest'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sortNoOrder by submission time. Default: newest
limitNoMax responses to return (default 20, max 50)
queryNoOnly responses whose text answers contain this string (case-insensitive)
sinceNoOnly responses submitted at or after this ISO 8601 time (e.g. '2026-08-29T00:00:00Z')
untilNoOnly responses submitted at or before this ISO 8601 time
contextYesDescribe the user's underlying goal in one sentence - not the tool you're calling.
form_idYesForm UUID (from clipform_list_forms / clipform_create_form)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
returnedYesResponses in this result
responsesYesMatching responses, filtered/sorted/capped per the inputs
total_matchingYesResponses matching the filters (before the limit cap)
locked_over_plan_limitYesMatching responses hidden by the plan's response limit

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: -[
-  "form_id"
-]New value: +[
+  "form_id",
+  "context"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses key behaviors: text-only answers, redaction of contact details/uploads/payments/audio/video, default newest-first sorting, and the explicit sort override. These are meaningful operational details not present in the 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 efficient and information-dense. It front-loads the core purpose and key differentiator, then provides examples, caveats, and default behavior in a natural order. Every sentence adds operational value without redundancy.

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 listing tool with a rich schema and output schema present, the description covers purpose, filtering semantics, sorting defaults, content limitations, and the path to get redacted data. Given the annotations already convey safety and idempotency, nothing critical 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. The description adds extra semantic value by explaining what 'sort' does in context ('sorted newest first unless sort: oldest'), clarifying that 'query' filters text answers, and tying time filtering to real questions. This is modest but useful enrichment beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('individual responses (submissions)'), and immediately distinguishes itself from clipform_get_results by noting it 'complements' the aggregate tool. The scope and object are unambiguous, so an agent can easily tell this apart from 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?

It explicitly names clipform_get_results as the sibling that handles aggregates, gives concrete example questions the tool answers, and notes that non-text content is redacted and viewable via the dashboard URL from clipform_get_form. This effectively communicates when to use this tool and when to look elsewhere.

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