Skip to main content
Glama

Clipform

by io.github.Clipform

Set Node Logic

clipform_set_logic
DestructiveIdempotent

Set the next node for one or more nodes, wiring a linear route (A to B to C). Pass multiple nodes in one call instead of separate tool calls. Each node routes to exactly one target node. Branching by which option a respondent picks is not configured here; it is set up in the form's Build tab in the dashboard (the builder URL returned by clipform_get_form / clipform_create_form).

A call replaces that node's routing entirely - it does not merge with any prior target.

Example: nodes: [ { node_id: "q1-id", rules: [{ target_node_id: "q2-id" }] }, { node_id: "q2-id", rules: [{ target_node_id: "q3-id" }] } ]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodesYesOne or more nodes to set logic on
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
resultsYesOne result per node, in order

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",
-  "nodes"
-]New value: +[
+  "form_id",
+  "nodes",
+  "context"
+]
  2. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / nodes / items / properties / node_id / description
      Previous value: -"The node ID to set logic on"New value: +"The node ID to set routing on"
    • changedInput schema / properties / nodes / items / properties / rules / description
      Previous value: -"Branching rules. Each maps an option or default to a target node."New value: +"Exactly one rule: the single node this node routes to"
    • removedInput schema / properties / nodes / items / properties / rules / items / properties / option_content
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "The option text to match. Omit for a default rule (applies to all unmatched options).",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedInput schema / properties / nodes / items / properties / rules / items / properties / target_node_id / description
      Previous value: -"The node ID to jump to when this rule matches"New value: +"The node ID this node routes to"
    • addedInput schema / properties / nodes / items / properties / rules / maxItems
      Added value: +1
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "results": {
+      "description": "One result per node, in order",
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "error": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "node_id": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "ok": {
+            "type": "boolean"
+          },
+          "rules_count": {
+            "type": "number"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "node_id",
+          "ok"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "results"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  4. 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 destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: 'A call replaces that node's routing entirely - it does not merge with any prior target.' This clarifies exactly what destructive behavior to expect.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then covers batching, branching exclusion, replacement behavior, and an example. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

Complete for this tool: it explains purpose, batching, routing constraints, branching exclusion, and replacement semantics. The schema and output schema cover parameter details and return behavior, so 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical value with the linear-route explanation and a concrete example showing how node_id and target_node_id relate in the nodes array.

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 specific action and resource: 'Set the next node for one or more nodes, wiring a linear route (A to B to C).' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from branching, so an agent can tell it apart from related node-editing 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?

Gives concrete usage guidance: batch multiple nodes in one call, and explicitly states branching is not handled here but in the dashboard's Build tab. It also clarifies that the call replaces routing entirely, which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate.

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