Skip to main content
Glama

Clipform

by io.github.Clipform

Get Clipform Results

clipform_get_results
Read-onlyIdempotent

View response counts, choice/action answer breakdowns, and recent open-text answers for a form. Contact, file, draw, camera, and payment answers are counts only - use the dashboard for per-response detail.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contextYesDescribe the user's underlying goal in one sentence - not the tool you're calling.
form_idYesThe form UUID (returned by clipform_create_form, not the short share_id from the URL)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodesYesNodes in form order. Contact/file/draw/camera/payment nodes carry only total_responses/total_views - no per-response detail.
results_urlNoDashboard Responses tab for this form. Not present for an anonymous caller.
total_responsesYesTotal unique respondents to the form

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed4 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"
+]
    • addedOutput schema / properties / results_url
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Dashboard Responses tab for this form. Not present for an anonymous caller.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it clarifies that certain answer types are only counts, that open-text answers are limited to 'recent' ones, and that per-response detail requires the dashboard. This helps set expectations for the data returned. 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 two tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the main purpose, and the second adds a precise limitation. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a read-only aggregation tool, the description covers the core output categories and key limitations. The missing pointer to clipform_get_responses as the tool to use for full per-response detail is a minor gap, but the explicit scoping of the returned data makes the tool usable as-is.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Both parameters are already well documented in the schema: form_id is explicitly distinguished from the short share_id, and context is described as the user's underlying goal. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('View') and a clear resource: response counts, choice/action answer breakdowns, and recent open-text answers for a form. It is clear and precise, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the closely named sibling clipform_get_responses.

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 conveys what data is available and notes that contact, file, draw, camera, and payment answers are counts only, directing users to the dashboard for per-response detail. However, it does not name a tool alternative such as clipform_get_responses, so when-to-use versus alternatives is only implied rather than explicit.

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