Skip to main content
Glama

asksteps

by co.asksteps

asksteps: statistics for one published form

asksteps_get_form_stats
Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns visits, completions and drop-off for one published form. Requires "forms:read". Get the publication id from asksteps_list_forms first.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rangeNoTime range: "7d", "30d" or "90d". Defaults to 30 days.
publication_idYesThe publication id, as returned by asksteps_list_forms.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteYesOne sentence for the user. Empty when there is nothing to say.
statsNoVisits, completions and drop-off for the publication, plus what these numbers are worth (field "notes"). Absent unless status is "ok".
statusYesOutcome. One of: "ok", "not_connected", "not_found" (no statistics for this publication id). 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.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds the required permission scope and the fact that stats are for a published form. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core behavior, permission requirement, and prerequisite are all front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

For a simple read-only stats tool with a full output schema and complete parameter documentation, the description covers authentication, the prerequisite id source, and the returned metrics. Nothing critical 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%, so the baseline is 3; the description mostly restates the publication_id source that the schema already documents. It adds no new parameter-level detail beyond reinforcing that the id comes from asksteps_list_forms.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and names the exact resource ('visits, completions and drop-off for one published form'), which clearly distinguishes this stats tool from sibling tools like asksteps_get_form or asksteps_list_forms. The title reinforces the purpose 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 Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives actionable usage guidance: it requires the 'forms:read' scope and tells the agent to obtain the publication_id from asksteps_list_forms first. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the prerequisite and resource naming make the intended call path clear.

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

All asksteps toolsInspect
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