List available contact/signup forms on this site (Wix Forms). Returns form name, ID, and field definitions (label, type, required). Use before submit_form to discover which fields to fill.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions the returned data but omits any side effects, auth requirements, or limitations. For a simple read-only tool, the transparency is adequate but not exhaustive.
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 no redundancy. First sentence states purpose and output, second gives usage guidance. Tight and front-loaded.
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 parameter-less tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does and returns, plus usage context. Could mention any implicit ordering or limits, but sufficient for the complexity.
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?
No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. The description adds value by detailing the output structure (form name, ID, field definitions with label, type, required), which is not in the schema.
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 'list' and the resource 'available contact/signup forms', specifying the context 'on this site (Wix Forms)'. It differentiates from sibling list tools by naming the specific form type.
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 states 'Use before submit_form to discover which fields to fill', giving clear when-to-use guidance and a direct reference to a sibling tool.
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 (bookings, store, events, restaurants, movies, etc.) with detailed descriptions that clearly differentiate their purposes. Overlap is minimal and handled by context, such as create_booking vs create_checkout vs request_reservation.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, using prefixes like get_, list_, create_, search_, etc. The naming is predictable and makes it easy to infer the action and resource.
28 tools is above the typical well-scoped range, but each tool covers a distinct feature of the neighborhood directory (places, events, movies, blog, forms, etc.). The count reflects the integration of multiple Wix apps, which is appropriate for a comprehensive directory.
The tool set covers most user-facing operations for a directory: search places, get details, book services, events, restaurant menus, etc. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no cancellation for bookings, no update operations), but these are likely out of scope for a public-facing server.
