asksteps

asksteps: create a new form in the connected account

asksteps_create_form

Creates a new form in the connected asksteps account from a structure of steps and fields. Requires "forms:write". The form is created but NOT published — publishing stays with the person who owns the account. Do not use this to rebuild a PDF: asksteps_analyze_pdf only shows you part of a document, so the copy would be silently incomplete. For a PDF, tell the user to import it in the asksteps studio, where the fields stay wired to the original document.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`spec`	Yes	The form to create: name, steps and fields.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No	Link that opens the form in the asksteps studio. Give it to the user so they can look at the result. Absolute when this deployment knows its public base URL, otherwise a site-relative path; never invent the domain part.
`note`	Yes	One sentence for the user. On rejection it says exactly what to fix.
`formId`	No	The id of the form. Keep it — it is how you read or change the form later.
`status`	Yes	Outcome. One of: "created", "updated", "not_connected", "not_found", "invalid_spec" (the structure was rejected — the note says exactly what to fix), "not_editable" (this form cannot be written from a spec), "unavailable", "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.
`stepCount`	No	Number of steps the form ended up with.
`fieldCount`	No	Total number of fields across all steps.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Adds significant behavior beyond annotations: the 'forms:write' permission requirement, the critical fact that the form is created but NOT published (ownership of publishing stays with the account owner), and the silent-incompleteness trap of reconstructing PDFs from partial analysis. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false aligns with 'Creates').

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?

Four sentences with zero waste. The core purpose leads, the permission requirement and non-publish behavior follow immediately, and the PDF caveat closes with an actionable alternative. Every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Exceptionally complete for a complex nested-object tool: purpose, permission, publication state, and a subtle data-integrity trap are all covered, and an output schema relieves the description of return-value explanations. The only minor gap is that the sibling asksteps_import_pdf exists but isn't named as the programmatic alternative to 'tell the user to import it in the studio', which would have been more directly actionable for the agent.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema itself is exceptionally detailed, describing every property with types, examples, and field-type semantics. The description adds only a high-level paraphrase ('from a structure of steps and fields'), so the baseline 3 applies — the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('Creates'), a specific resource ('a new form in the connected asksteps account'), and the input structure ('from a structure of steps and fields'). It differentiates from siblings by explicitly warning against using it to rebuild a PDF from asksteps_analyze_pdf output, making its scope unmistakable.

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?

Gives explicit when-not-to-use guidance: 'Do not use this to rebuild a PDF', names the sibling tool involved (asksteps_analyze_pdf), explains why (silently incomplete copy), and redirects the user to the correct alternative (import in the asksteps studio). This is explicit routing with rationale, not just implication.

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?