List available contact/signup forms on this site (Wix Forms). Returns form name, ID, and field definitions (label, type, required). Use before submit_form to discover which fields to fill.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It accurately describes the read-only nature of listing forms and specifies return data. While it could explicitly state it's a read operation, the behavior is clear from context and no contradictions exist.
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 extremely concise—two sentences that front-load the purpose and provide clear guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no extraneous 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, low complexity), the description fully covers all necessary context: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it relative to sibling tools.
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 tool has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds value by indicating that the response includes field definitions, which goes beyond the empty schema. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
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 lists available contact/signup forms on the site, specifies the resource (Wix Forms), and outlines return values (name, ID, field definitions). It distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_form by explicitly mentioning its use before that tool.
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 recommends using this tool before submit_form to discover fields, providing clear usage context. It does not include explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, but the guidance is sufficient for a simple list tool.
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 operation: bookings, restaurants, events, forms, etc. Even similar actions like create_booking and request_reservation are clearly differentiated by domain and description.
Tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_booking, get_availability, list_blog_posts). Collection retrieval uses list_ while single item uses get_, which is a standard and clear convention.
28 tools is on the upper end, but each serves a distinct function for a comprehensive neighborhood directory (places, events, booking, forms, etc.). No obvious bloat given the scope.
The tool surface covers all major user intents for a local directory: searching places, getting menus, booking services, viewing events, submitting forms, etc. No critical gaps are apparent.