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, the description must carry the full transparency burden. It discloses the success return (submissionId) and the prerequisite, but omits details about error behavior, irreversibility, or authentication requirements. For a mutation tool, this is a notable gap, though the description is not misleading.
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 consists of three concise sentences, each delivering essential context: the action, the prerequisite step, and the return value. There is no redundant or filler content; every sentence earns its place.
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?
Despite lacking annotations and an output schema, the description covers the critical workflow: get form info via list_forms, submit, and receive a submissionId. It does not explain failure modes or long-term side effects, but for a relatively simple tool with well-documented schema, this is reasonably complete.
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?
The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond referencing list_forms. The schema itself includes a helpful example for fields, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 Wix form on the user's behalf, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the prerequisite of calling list_forms, which implies the tool's role in the workflow.
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?
It explicitly instructs to call list_forms first to obtain the formId and field keys, providing a concrete usage step. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or list alternatives, though the prerequisite effectively scopes its usage.
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 or action (e.g., create_booking vs create_checkout, reserve_event_tickets vs rsvp_event), and descriptions provide clear boundaries. Even closely related tools like list_booking_services and list_pricing_plans are differentiated by context.
All 26 tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, create_, search_, etc.), with no mixed conventions or vague verbs. This makes the tool set predictable and easy to navigate.
At 26 tools, the set is on the heavy side and exceeds the typical well-scoped range, but the diversity reflects a multi-featured directory covering bookings, events, store, reviews, forms, and more. Each tool appears to serve a distinct purpose, so the count is borderline rather than excessive.
The surface covers the core user workflows: search, view details, book services, reserve/RSVP events, request reservations, submit forms, and browse content. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no cancellation/update for bookings, no full blog post body), but these are workarounds and not critical for a consumer-facing directory.
