asksteps

asksteps: get the link where the user books a plan

asksteps_start_checkout

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns the link where the user books a plan themselves, with that plan preselected, and the exact net price. Requires "billing:write". NOTHING is bought by this call and nothing can be: the customer enters their payment details with the payment provider and gives the statutory acknowledgement personally — asksteps never sees card data, and that declaration is not one a machine can make for someone. Use this for a FIRST purchase. To move an existing paid account between plans, use asksteps_change_plan instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`interval`	No	"month" (default) or "year".
`plan_code`	Yes	Plan code: "starter", "professional" or "business". Call asksteps_get_capabilities for the catalogue.

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?

Even though annotations already indicate readOnly/idempotent, the description adds critical non-obvious context: no purchase happens, the customer pays the provider directly, asksteps never sees card data, and the statutory acknowledgement must be given personally. No contradiction with annotations; 'Requires billing:write' is a permission requirement, not a claim that the call mutates state.

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 main result is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by permission, side-effect clarification, and routing to the sibling. Every sentence adds value, and the payment caveats justify the length.

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 an output schema present, all parameters fully described in the schema, rich annotations, and explicit sibling routing, nothing is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool 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 the schema already documents plan_code and interval. The description adds that plan_code determines the preselected plan, but no new parameter-level detail beyond the schema is needed.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the link where the user books a plan themselves, with that plan preselected, and the exact net price.' It immediately distinguishes itself from asksteps_change_plan, so the agent can tell what this tool is for without relying on the title.

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?

It explicitly states when to use ('Use this for a FIRST purchase') and when not to ('To move an existing paid account between plans, use asksteps_change_plan instead'), plus the 'billing:write' requirement. This is unambiguous selection 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?