asksteps

asksteps: start from a ready-made template

asksteps_create_from_template

Creates a form or funnel from one of the ready-made templates. Requires "forms:write". PREFER THIS over building from scratch when a template fits: it brings its design, its success page and its wording along — things the plain structure cannot describe. Call asksteps_list_templates first, then change the texts with asksteps_update_form. It is NOT published.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No	Name for the new form. Leave empty to keep the template's own name.
`template_id`	Yes	The template id, from asksteps_list_templates.

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

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only carry false hints (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive), so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds three valuable disclosures: the created resource "is NOT published", it "Requires forms:write", and the template's design/success page/wording are inherited. This enriches the annotation surface without contradicting it.

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, each with a distinct job: purpose, permission, usage guidance, and publication state. The core action is front-loaded and no sentence is filler or redundant with the schema.

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?

With only 2 parameters, an output schema documenting return values, and full parameter coverage, the description covers everything needed to invoke correctly: what it does, when to prefer it, prerequisite call, follow-up call, permission, and resulting state. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to use it safely and correctly.

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%, so both parameters are already fully documented and the baseline of 3 applies. The description reinforces that template_id comes from asksteps_list_templates, but that fact already appears in the schema, so it adds little new semantic meaning beyond the structured data.

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?

"Creates a form or funnel from one of the ready-made templates" pairs a specific verb and resource with a distinct creation path, immediately separating it from asksteps_create_form and asksteps_create_funnel, which build from scratch. The added detail about inheriting design, success page and wording further pins down what this tool uniquely accomplishes versus its siblings.

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?

"PREFER THIS over building from scratch when a template fits" explicitly states when to select this tool over alternatives and why: it carries design, success page and wording that the plain structure cannot describe. It also chains a complete workflow — call asksteps_list_templates first, then refine with asksteps_update_form — leaving nothing to inference.

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?