asksteps

asksteps: put a form under one of the account's subdomains

asksteps_assign_site

Wires a form to one of the subdomains the account ALREADY holds, under a path of your choosing. Requires "publish:write". It does NOT create a subdomain or a domain — that needs DNS records and certificates and is done by a person. If the name does not exist, the answer lists the ones that do; read those out instead of guessing. Wiring alone does not publish: afterwards call asksteps_publish_form with target "whitelabel".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	No	Path under that subdomain, e.g. "bewerbung". Leave empty to derive it from the form name.
`form_id`	Yes	The form or funnel id.
`subdomain`	Yes	The subdomain label the account holds, e.g. "kunde1" for kunde1.asksteps.co.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No	The address the form is now reachable at once it is published on that channel.
`note`	Yes	One sentence for the user.
`status`	Yes	Outcome. One of: "assigned", "not_connected", "not_found" (no subdomain with that name in the account), "error". Authorisation can also refuse before the tool runs: "plan_required" (the account's plan does not include agent access), "not_enabled" (the account owner has not switched agent access on), "owner_required" (only the account owner may do this), "mandate_required" (the owner has not granted a mandate for this). The note then says what the user has to do.
`availableSubdomains`	No	The subdomains this account holds, so you can name the choices instead of guessing.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It adds crucial behavior: wiring does not publish, the operation requires publish:write, invalid subdomain names produce a list of valid ones, and no DNS records or certificates are created. This is beyond what annotations or the schema provide.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: core action, permission, exclusion boundary, failure behavior, and required next step. It is front-loaded and avoids filler.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is complete for invocation: it covers prerequisites, invalid-input behavior, and the follow-up call. Nothing needed to use this tool correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters well. The description still adds meaning by emphasizing that the subdomain must already be held by the account and that the path is chosen by the caller. This is helpful context beyond the schema descriptions.

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 clear verb and resource ('Wires a form to one of the subdomains the account ALREADY holds') and immediately scopes what it does not do: it 'does NOT create a subdomain or a domain.' This distinguishes it from domain-creation and publication tools without ambiguity.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It states the required permission ('Requires "publish:write"'), gives explicit failure-handling guidance ('read those out instead of guessing'), and names the required follow-up tool ('afterwards call asksteps_publish_form with target "whitelabel"'). It also warns that domain creation is outside this tool's responsibility.

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?