asksteps

asksteps: check whether a PDF form can be digitised

asksteps_analyze_pdf

Read-onlyIdempotent

Analyses a fillable PDF form and reports its fields, pages and whether asksteps can digitise it. Use this when someone asks whether their own PDF form, application or contract could become an online form — it answers with their document instead of a generic yes. Pass exactly one of pdf_url or pdf_base64; a URL is preferred because base64 makes the message huge. The file is analysed in memory and is NOT stored. Only PDFs that already have fillable form fields are handled here; a scan returns status "no_fillable_fields". Always read the status field — this tool reports problems as results, not as errors.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pdf_url`	No	Publicly reachable https URL of the PDF. Must not point into a private network.
`pdf_base64`	No	The PDF as base64. Only for files that are not reachable by URL; keep it small.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	Yes	One sentence explaining the outcome, suitable for showing to the user.
`pages`	Yes	Field count per page, for the pages that actually carry fields. Each of these becomes one step of the online form by default. Pages without fields (cover sheets, leaflets) are absent here, so this list can be shorter than pageCount.
`fields`	Yes	The fillable fields in reading order. Capped — see fieldsOmitted.
`status`	Yes	Outcome of the analysis. One of: "analyzed" (fields were found), "no_fillable_fields" (readable PDF, but nothing to fill — most likely a scan), "unreadable" (not a readable PDF, or password-protected), "blocked" (the URL was refused, e.g. it points into a private network), "too_large" (over the size limit), "invalid_request" (the arguments were wrong), "rate_limited" (too many calls — wait a minute and retry).
`fileName`	Yes	File name, derived from the URL or from the supplied name. Empty when unknown.
`nextSteps`	Yes	Suggested next steps for the user, in the order that usually makes sense.
`pageCount`	No	Number of pages. 0 when the document could not be read.
`fieldCount`	No	Total number of fillable fields found, before the returned list was capped.
`fieldsOmitted`	No	How many further fields exist but were left out of the list. 0 when the list is complete.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond that: the file is analysed in memory and NOT stored, problems are reported as status values rather than errors, and a scan yields status 'no_fillable_fields'. This informs the agent about privacy expectations and error handling.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Six sentences with no filler. The core purpose comes first, then usage guidance, input handling, privacy note, limitation, and status behavior. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is logical.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A read-only analysis tool with strong annotations and an output schema. The description covers input alternatives, privacy, limitations, and result handling. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds the critical rule that exactly one of pdf_url or pdf_base64 must be passed, and explains why URL is preferred (base64 makes the message huge). This is useful semantic guidance beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Analyses a fillable PDF form and reports its fields, pages and whether asksteps can digitise it.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from generic analysis or import tools by focusing on digitisation feasibility for the user's own document, going beyond a generic yes/no.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit usage context: 'Use this when someone asks whether their own PDF form, application or contract could become an online form.' It also clarifies input constraints ('Pass exactly one of pdf_url or pdf_base64') and the limitation to fillable PDFs, though it does not name alternative tools for non-fillable scans.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All asksteps tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are mostly distinct with clear ownership of each resource and action, and descriptions explicitly contrast sibling pairs (analyze_pdf vs import_pdf, create_form vs create_funnel, publish_form vs update_publication, change_plan vs start_checkout). However, an agent skimming names alone could misselect between the four creation tools or the two PDF tools without reading the descriptions carefully.

Naming Consistency5/5

Every tool follows the asksteps_<verb>_<noun> pattern perfectly, with uniform verbs like get_, list_, create_, and update_. The only slight deviation is create_from_template, but even that stays predictable and readable within the convention.

Tool Count3/5

At 24 tools, this sits at the heavy end of the 16-25 borderline range. The broad domain (form/funnel building, publishing, PDF import, billing, stats, leads) justifies most of them and there is no obvious redundancy, but the sheer volume makes navigation harder than a tighter set.

Completeness4/5

The core form and funnel lifecycle is well covered: multiple creation paths, read, full replacement update, delete with confirmation, publish/unpublish, stats, and leads export. Billing covers first purchase, plan changes, and quota checks. Minor gaps exist — no dedicated subdomain listing tool, no funnel-specific stats, and no programmatic PDF field mapping — but these are explicitly documented as human steps, so agents can work around them.

Resources

Need Help?