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?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses the action (submission) and return (submissionId), but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or error handling. 'On behalf of the user' hints at auth but is insufficient 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?
Two sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with the primary action, then provides critical prerequisite and return info. Every word 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?
Given the simple two-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: main action, prerequisite workflow, and success return. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.
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% with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the origin of parameter values (from list_forms) and the success return (submissionId), enhancing understanding 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?
The description clearly states the action: 'Submit a form on behalf of the user (Wix Forms).' It uses a specific verb ('Submit') and resource ('form'), and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning list_forms as a prerequisite.
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 obtain formId and field keys, providing a clear when-to-use and prerequisite. No alternatives are mentioned, but the context is unambiguous.
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: booking appointments, restaurant reservations, event tickets, searches, etc. No two tools have overlapping purposes; even similar actions like create_booking and request_reservation are for different domains (appointments vs. restaurant tables).
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lowercase and underscores (e.g., get_availability, list_events, create_booking). There is no mixing of styles like camelCase or inconsistent verbs.
28 tools is above the typical well-scoped range but each tool serves a clear purpose within the comprehensive neighborhood directory domain. The count feels justified, though slightly heavy.
The tool set covers most major features of a neighborhood directory: places, events, booking, restaurant menus, reviews, forms, etc. Minor gaps exist, such as no create_review or update operations, but core workflows are complete.