foxform_export_responsesExport all responses for a form as CSV text (one row per response, columns = questions). Large exports are truncated — use foxform_list_responses with pagination for very large datasets.
Args:
form_id (string)
Returns: raw CSV text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| form_id | Yes | Form ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: truncation of large exports, the CSV format, and the row/column structure of the returned text, which the annotations do not convey.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose and the important truncation caveat. The only minor redundancy is the Args block echoing what the schema already documents, but it does not meaningfully hurt readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter read-only export with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is returned, the format, the high-level structure, and the truncation behavior with a fallback alternative. No critical information needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with form_id fully described as a required string in the input schema. The description merely repeats 'form_id (string)' in the Args section and does not add new semantic meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the action: export all responses for a form as CSV text, and clarifies the output shape (one row per response, columns = questions). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like foxform_list_responses by framing the result as a single CSV export.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly names the alternative tool and the condition for choosing it: 'Large exports are truncated — use foxform_list_responses with pagination for very large datasets.' This tells the agent when not to use this tool and what to use instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource-action pair: forms vs responses vs analytics, and create/update/publish/unpublish/list/get are clearly separated. There is no overlap or ambiguity between any two tools.
All tool names follow the uniform foxform_<verb>_<noun> pattern in snake_case, with clear verbs (create, get, list, update, publish, unpublish, export). The convention is perfectly consistent across the entire set.
Ten tools is well-scoped for a form management server, covering form lifecycle, response retrieval, and analytics without redundancy or bloat. Each tool earns its place.
The server covers the full form lifecycle (create, read, update, publish, unpublish) and response viewing/export/analytics. The only notable gap is the lack of a delete operation for forms, which is a minor dead end rather than a critical failure.