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 burden. It states the tool is a submission (write operation) and returns a submissionId on success, but does not disclose potential side effects, authorization needs, or error handling. Basic transparency is present.
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, front-loaded with action and scope, followed by prerequisite and output. No wasted words; 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?
For a tool with 2 required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers how to obtain inputs and what the return value is. No missing critical information.
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 description coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The main description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., the example in schema). Baseline score 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 identifies the action ('submit a form'), the resource ('Wix Forms'), and the scope ('on behalf of the user'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_forms by stating the prerequisite call.
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?
The description explicitly instructs to 'call list_forms first to get the formId and field keys', providing clear usage context. It does not specify when not to use, but the context is clear enough for a specific action.
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 and resource, such as booking, checking availability, listing events, or searching dishes. No two tools appear to overlap in purpose, and descriptions clearly differentiate them.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_booking, get_availability, list_events, search_places). The prefixes (create, get, list, search, request, reserve, rsvp, submit) are uniformly applied, and there is no mixing of cases or styles.
With 28 tools, the server covers a broad feature set for a neighborhood directory, including bookings, store, events, loyalty, menus, movies, and more. While slightly high, each tool serves a distinct purpose and is justifiable.
The tool surface appears complete for the domain: search, details, booking flows, store purchases, events, loyalty, reviews, blog, offers, profiles, forms, and FAQ are all covered. There are no obvious dead ends, and operations for CRUD or lifecycle are present where needed.