Skip to main content
Glama

Clipform

by io.github.Clipform

Import Form

clipform_import_form

Convert a public Google Form, Typeform, or Tally form into a new Clipform. Supported URLs: Google Forms (docs.google.com or forms.gle - must be shared as "Anyone with the link"), Typeform (form.typeform.com/to/...), and Tally (tally.so - must be public). The source form must be publicly accessible; a private form's questions cannot be read. The new Clipform is created as a DRAFT - review it, then republish with clipform_update_form (is_live: true) once it's ready. Some question types don't map cleanly to a Clipform node and are skipped rather than guessed at; the result always reports exactly what was imported vs skipped, and why.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesPublic URL of the Google Form, Typeform, or Tally form to import
contextYesDescribe the user's underlying goal in one sentence - not the tool you're calling.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
form_idYesNew form's UUID - pass to follow-up tools. Null when no importable questions were found (nothing was created).
viewer_urlYesThe address this form WILL be live at once published (clipform_update_form with is_live: true) - it is a draft and is NOT viewable by anyone yet; opening it now shows a maintenance screen, not the form. Null when no importable questions were found.
import_summaryYes

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

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavioral details: the new Clipform is created as a DRAFT, unsupported question types are skipped rather than guessed, and the result reports exactly what was imported vs skipped and why. This gives the agent a clear model of side effects and limitations.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the core action, supported sources, public-access requirement, draft/publish workflow, and skip/report behavior. The description is detailed but not bloated, and important constraints are front-loaded.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations, this description is complete. It covers what inputs are accepted, what constraints apply, what side effects occur, and what the result includes. The agent has enough context to call the tool correctly and know what to expect.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds meaningful URL-level constraints: which domains are supported, which URL forms count, and the public-access requirement. It also reinforces the intended meaning of context by framing it as the user's underlying goal in 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 opens with a specific verb and object: "Convert a public Google Form, Typeform, or Tally form into a new Clipform." It clearly names the supported sources and distinguishes this importer from general form creation by emphasizing that it takes an existing external form.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear usage context: use it for public forms from supported providers, and explicitly excludes private forms whose questions cannot be read. It also directs the user to the next step via clipform_update_form. It does not explicitly mention starting from scratch with clipform_create_form as an alternative, but the context is otherwise strong.

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