asksteps

asksteps: read the account's plan and what is used of it

asksteps_get_subscription

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns the connected account's plan, its trial state and every quota with how much of it is used. Requires "billing:read". Call this whenever something was refused for a limit — it answers 'why can I not do this' in one call. Read capability questions from effectivePlanCode and the quotas, NOT from planCode: during a trial the two differ on purpose. It also tells you whether an agent may change this plan at all (field "mandate").

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	Yes	One sentence for the user.
`quotas`	No	Every quota of the account with its limit and what is used of it.
`status`	Yes	Outcome. One of: "ok", "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.
`mandate`	No	Whether an agent may change this account's plan, and within which limits. When mandate is absent, use asksteps_start_checkout and let the user finish it.
`interval`	No	Billing interval: "month" or "year".
`planCode`	No	Plan code of the booked subscription: "free", "starter", "professional", "business".
`planName`	No	Display name of that plan.
`trialEndsAt`	No	When a running trial ends, ISO 8601. Empty when there is no trial.
`effectivePlanCode`	No	The plan whose limits actually apply right now. During the trial this DIFFERS from planCode: the customer is billed for the trial plan but entitled to a higher one. Answer "can I do X" from this field, not from planCode.
`subscriptionStatus`	No	Subscription state: "trialing", "active", "past_due", "canceled", "incomplete".

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and idempotent, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing the required 'billing:read' permission, the trial-time discrepancy between effectivePlanCode and planCode, and the meaning of the 'mandate' field. This is rich, actionable behavioral context not present in structured annotations.

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 compact yet information-dense. The primary return value is front-loaded, followed by the permission requirement, the main use case, a critical interpretation trap, and the mandate field. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 empty input schema, rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is returned, required permission, when to call it, how to interpret the response correctly, and whether plan changes are permitted. There are no meaningful gaps.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately avoids inventing parameter guidance that would be irrelevant.

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 names a specific verb ('Returns') and a precise resource: the connected account's plan, trial state, and usage quotas. It also clarifies the mandate field, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like asksteps_get_capabilities or asksteps_change_plan.

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 a clear trigger condition: 'Call this whenever something was refused for a limit — it answers why can I not do this in one call.' It also warns about reading effectivePlanCode instead of planCode during trials. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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?