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 carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a dependency (call list_forms) and a return value (submissionId), but does not disclose authorization requirements, side effects such as creating a submission record, or potential failure modes. This is a moderate level of transparency for a write operation.
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 two concise sentences: first states the purpose, then gives a prerequisite and return value. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary detail or repetition.
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 simple write tool with two fully described required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core elements: action, prerequisite, and return value. It lacks explicit error handling or permission notes, but these are not essential for basic usage and the tool is otherwise 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?
Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are described in the schema, so the description does not need to add much. The description reinforces the prerequisite to get formId and field keys from list_forms, but it does not introduce new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
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 form on behalf of the user, specifically in the Wix Forms context. It uses a distinct verb+resource combination ('submit a form'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_forms and other write tools such as create_booking.
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, which is a clear prerequisite and usage context. However, it does not mention exclusion criteria or alternative tools, but no direct alternative for form submission exists among the siblings.
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 services, restaurant reservations, event tickets, and RSVPs are all clearly separated by domain and described with explicit use cases. Similarly, search_places, search_dishes, and get_restaurant_menus cover different granularities of place/menu lookup. The descriptions include guidance on when to use each tool, eliminating ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., list_*, get_*, create_*, search_*). While a few verbs like 'request' and 'rsvp' differ, they accurately reflect the action's semantics and do not break the overall consistency. The naming makes the tool's purpose predictable from its name.
At 28 tools, this is a large set, but it serves a broad multi-domain directory (places, events, movies, store, bookings, content, etc.). Each tool covers a distinct feature or resource, and there are no redundant tools. The count is at the upper boundary but appropriate for the server's comprehensive scope.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle for the directory's main domains: search/discover places, view details, menus, reviews, book services, reserve/RSVP events, browse movies/showtimes, list products, access content (blog, guides, FAQs), submit forms, and check loyalty. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose. The inclusion of pairing tools like list_forms→submit_form and get_availability→create_booking shows deliberate workflow completeness.