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. | |
| formId | Yes | Form ID from list_forms. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / fields / descriptionPrevious value: -"Key-value pairs matching the field keys from list_forms. Example: { \"field_1\": \"João\", \"field_2\": \"joao@email.com\" }"New value: +"Key-value pairs matching the field keys from list_forms."Input schema / properties / fields / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "field_1": "João",
+ "field_2": "joao@email.com"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it acts on the user's behalf and that a submissionId is returned, but says nothing about side effects (notifications, email confirmations) or what happens with unknown field keys — context that matters for a mutation 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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the prerequisite, then the return value. No filler and nothing repeated from the title or schema.
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 two-parameter tool with a nested object and full schema coverage, the definition covers action, prerequisite, and return value. It could still clarify failure behavior (malformed/unknown field keys) and whether submissions are visible elsewhere, but the essentials are present.
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% and both formId and fields are documented in the schema, including an example of the key-value shape. The description only restates that formId and field keys come from list_forms, adding no syntax or validation detail beyond 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?
States a specific verb (Submit) and resource (a form, Wix Forms) and scopes it as acting on behalf of the user. It also names the prerequisite discovery tool (list_forms), which separates it from the many read/list siblings in this toolset.
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?
"Call list_forms first to get the formId and field keys" gives an explicit ordering constraint and names the alternative to use for discovery. It stops short of saying when NOT to use this (e.g., previewing a form, editing an existing submission), so it is not a full when/when-not pair.
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.