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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It indicates a write operation (submission) and the return value, but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or potential side effects. Adequate for a simple submission tool.
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 two sentences long, front-loading the purpose and then giving essential usage instructions. Every sentence adds necessary information with no redundancy.
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 tool's low complexity (2 required params, no enums, no output schema), the description covers the primary workflow (prerequisite call, what it returns). It lacks details on error handling or response format but is sufficient for the intended use.
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%, so parameters are already well described. The description adds value by reinforcing the prerequisite (list_forms) and providing an example of field key-value pairs, which helps the agent understand the dynamic nature of the fields parameter.
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 tool submits a form on behalf of the user specifically for Wix Forms. It identifies the resource (form) and action (submit), and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_forms, which is a prerequisite.
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 prerequisite context. Also states it returns a submissionId. Does not mention when to avoid using the tool, but for a single-purpose tool this is minor.
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 action on a specific resource (e.g., create_booking vs create_checkout vs reserve_event_tickets). Descriptions clearly differentiate purposes, and no two tools overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., get_availability, list_categories, search_dishes). Verbs like get, list, create, request, rsvp are used uniformly, making the set predictable.
28 tools is above the typical 3-15 range, but the server covers a broad domain (places, events, movies, booking, store, etc.). Each tool serves a clear purpose, so the count is justified for the scope.
The tool surface is extensive, covering searching, details, reviews, booking, events, menus, etc. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no cancel/update operations), but they are likely intentional given the user-facing nature of the server.
