foxform_get_responseFetch one response by its ID (from foxform_list_responses).
Args:
response_id (string)
response_format ('markdown' | 'json')
Returns the full response object (id, form_id, answers, submitted_at, metadata).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| response_id | Yes | Response ID | |
| response_format | No | Output format: 'markdown' (human-readable) or 'json' (machine-readable) | markdown |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail by listing the returned full response object fields and the markdown/json format choice, which goes beyond the structured annotations.
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, followed by a brief Args/Returns structure. The Args list largely duplicates schema content, but it is short and does not detract much from 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 simple single-response fetch tool, the description covers the source of the ID, supported output formats, and the return object shape, which compensates for the lack of an output schema. It omits error behavior for missing IDs, but annotations and the tool's simplicity lower the burden.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the two parameters and format options but does not materially add semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, except for noting the response_id comes from foxform_list_responses.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch one response by its ID (from foxform_list_responses).' It clearly identifies the tool as a single-item fetch operation and differentiates it from list/export tools by emphasizing exactly one response is returned.
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?
The phrase 'from foxform_list_responses' gives clear context that a response_id should come from that sibling tool, and the focus on 'one response' implies this is for targeted retrieval rather than bulk listing or export. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5.
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.