List intake forms
acuity_list_formsRead-only
List the account's custom intake forms and their fields. Acuity REST: GET /forms.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
acuity-scheduling
by io.usefulapi
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds that fields are included in output, but no additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination, authentication, rate limits).
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?
Two short sentences with no filler. The REST endpoint reference is concise and helpful. Front-loaded with action and resource.
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 no-parameter read-only list tool, the description fully covers purpose, scope ('account-wide'), and output hint ('their fields'). No gaps given complexity.
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?
No parameters exist, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). Baseline 4 applies per guidelines; description adequately covers that the tool has no parameters.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'List' and resource 'custom intake forms and their fields', clearly distinguishing from sibling list tools like acuity_list_appointments or acuity_list_clients.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance provided. Does not reference alternative tools, leaving agent to infer context from name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action (appointments, clients, calendars, etc.) with clear naming and no overlapping functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow the consistent pattern 'acuity_<verb>_<noun>' with uniform verb choices (list, get, create, cancel, reschedule) and proper pluralization.
Tool Count5/5
18 tools cover the essential aspects of a scheduling system (availability, appointments, clients, calendars, etc.) without being excessive or insufficient.
Completeness4/5
Core scheduling operations are well covered, but missing update and delete for clients, and read-only access to other entities (e.g., appointment types, blocks) may limit full lifecycle management.