Submit a form on behalf of the user (Wix Forms). Call list_forms first to get the formId and field keys. Returns a submissionId on success.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | Key-value pairs matching the field keys from list_forms. Example: { "field_1": "João", "field_2": "joao@email.com" } | |
| formId | Yes | Form ID from list_forms. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states it submits a form (a write operation) but does not mention required permissions, reversibility, or potential side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool without annotation support.
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?
Two sentences with purpose first, then usage guidance and return value. Every sentence serves a clear purpose; no fluff.
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?
Given the simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, input semantics, and return value. It could mention error conditions, but overall it is sufficient for basic usage.
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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining that formId comes from list_forms and fields are key-value pairs with an example. This goes beyond the schema's type information.
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 clearly states the verb 'submit' and the resource 'form', specifying it's for Wix Forms. It distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing list_forms as a prerequisite, making its purpose unambiguous.
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?
Explicitly instructs to call list_forms first to obtain formId and field keys, providing clear when-to-use guidance. Also states the return value (submissionId), which helps the agent decide if 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct domain (e.g., booking, restaurant reservation, event RSVP, movie showtimes) with clear descriptions that prevent confusion. Overlapping verbs like 'create' are used for different resource types, and the descriptions explicitly distinguish their contexts.
All 28 tools follow a strict verb_noun pattern with underscores, e.g., create_booking, get_availability, list_events. No mixing of conventions or inconsistent verb styles.
28 tools is at the upper end of reasonable for a broad neighborhood directory server covering places, bookings, events, movies, store, forms, and more. While each tool serves a distinct purpose, the count feels slightly high for a single server.
The tool surface covers core discovery and booking initiation (search, detail, book, reserve), but lacks lifecycle operations like cancel, update, or list user's existing bookings. Several operations require external checkout or confirmation links, creating workflow gaps.