asksteps

asksteps: move a paid account to another plan

asksteps_change_plan

Idempotent

Moves an account that already pays to a different plan. THIS SPENDS THE CUSTOMER'S MONEY. Requires "billing:write", the account owner, and a purchase mandate the owner granted in the studio with a maximum plan, a spending cap and an expiry date. The first call NEVER changes anything: it returns "confirmation_required" together with the exact net price. Read that price to the user, get their agreement, and only then call again with confirm = true. A downgrade needs the mandate to allow it, because shrinking limits can switch features off. If the account has no subscription with the payment provider yet, you get "checkout_required" and a link — a first purchase is not something an agent can complete. Every executed change is emailed to the account owner.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`confirm`	No	Set to true only AFTER you told the user the price and they agreed. Without it nothing is charged.
`interval`	No	"month" (default) or "year". A yearly change commits twelve months at once.
`plan_code`	Yes	Plan code to move to.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No	Link where the user completes the purchase themselves. Give it to them verbatim.
`note`	Yes	One sentence for the user. On "confirmation_required" it names the plan, the price and what changes — read it out before asking.
`status`	Yes	Outcome. One of: "changed" (the plan is now different), "confirmation_required" (read the note to the user and call again with confirm = true if they agree), "checkout_required" (give them the url; only they can enter payment details), "not_allowed" (outside the mandate — the note says which limit), "not_connected", "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.
`interval`	No	The billing interval this price refers to: "month" or "year".
`planCode`	No	The plan code after the change, when something changed.
`priceCents`	No	The net price per interval in cents, so you can state it exactly instead of estimating.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations: it warns "THIS SPENDS THE CUSTOMER'S MONEY," discloses the dry-run first call returning confirmation_required + net price, the downgrade side effect (features can switch off), the mandatory email to the owner, and the checkout_required edge case. None of this contradicts the annotations (readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true are consistent with a two-phase charged mutation).

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 highest-stakes warning (spends money) is front-loaded in the second sentence, followed by prerequisites, the two-step protocol, caveats, and edge cases in logical order. Though longer than average, every sentence carries operational weight for a financial mutation with a confirmation flow — there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 an output schema exists to cover return values, the description covers everything an agent needs to call correctly: prerequisites, the two-phase confirmation flow, downgrade caveats, the first-purchase/ch checkout_required edge case, and owner notification. Nothing needed to avoid a harmful financial mis-call is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already gives rich per-parameter guidance (e.g., confirm: "Set to true only AFTER you told the user the price and they agreed"). The description reinforces the confirm protocol at workflow level but adds no per-parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 first sentence, "Moves an account that already pays to a different plan," is a specific verb (moves) + resource (paid account → plan). The qualifier "already pays" actively distinguishes it from first-purchase flows, and the description reinforces this boundary with the checkout_required edge case, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like asksteps_start_checkout without opening their schemas.

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?

The description gives an explicit protocol (first call never changes anything, read the confirmation_required price, get agreement, then call with confirm=true), explicit prerequisites (billing:write, account owner, purchase mandate with max plan/spending cap/expiry), and an explicit when-not boundary ("a first purchase is not something an agent can complete"). It also warns that downgrades need mandate allowance. This is full when/when-not guidance.

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?