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 itself must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'returns a submissionId on success' implying a write operation, but does not detail error states, idempotency, or permissions. Minimal but sufficient.
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, each essential: purpose and prerequisite. No filler, front-loaded with key information.
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 an output schema, the description mentions the return value (submissionId). It also references a required prerequisite tool. Could include error handling but adequate for a simple submission.
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%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining the parameters come from list_forms and provides a concrete example for the 'fields' parameter, aiding correct invocation.
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 'submit a form on behalf of the user (Wix Forms)', specifying the verb (submit) and resource (form). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_forms which is a read operation.
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 get the formId and field keys', providing a clear prerequisite. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool guidance.
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 (booking, checkout, availability, events, reviews, etc.). Even similar-looking tools like create_booking, request_reservation, and rsvp_event are clearly differentiated by their descriptions and target systems.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_booking, get_availability, list_booking_services). No mixing of conventions or unclear verbs.
28 tools is on the higher end, but the server covers a wide domain (places, events, movies, booking, forms, loyalty, etc.). Each tool serves a clear purpose, so the count is justifiable, though minor trimming could be considered.
The tool set covers most workflows for a neighborhood directory: search, details, booking, events, reviews, etc. Some CRUD operations are missing (no update/delete for bookings), but these are consumer-facing actions where that is acceptable. The domain is well-covered.
