asksteps

asksteps: replace an existing form

asksteps_update_form

Idempotent

Replaces an existing form of the connected asksteps account. Requires "forms:write". IMPORTANT: this REPLACES the whole form — every step and field you do not send is gone. Call asksteps_get_form first, change what the user asked for, and send the result back complete. Forms built from a PDF and forms containing elements this format cannot describe are refused; the answer says which and why. The publication state is never changed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`spec`	Yes	The complete new content of the form. Anything omitted is deleted.
`form_id`	Yes	The form id, as returned by asksteps_list_forms or asksteps_get_form.

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

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses the critical destructive behavior: every step and field not sent is deleted. It also reveals that the publication state is never changed and that unsupported forms are refused with an explanation. These go well beyond the annotations, which only indicate non-read-only and idempotent behavior. No contradiction with 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 and every sentence earns its place: purpose, permission, destructive warning, required workflow, refusal conditions, and publication-state guarantee. Critical information is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of trivial schema details.

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 complex tool with nested objects and an output schema, the description covers all essential operational context: permissions, destructive semantics, the prerequisite get-then-update workflow, refusal cases, and what remains unaffected. The output schema handles return-value details, so nothing important 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for every parameter, including nested field types, defaults, and constraints. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but with such thorough schema documentation, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does reinforce the 'anything omitted is deleted' concept, but the schema already states this.

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 action ('Replaces an existing form') and identifies the exact resource ('of the connected asksteps account'). It clearly distinguishes this from creating a new form and emphasizes the whole-form replacement semantics. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

The description gives explicit usage guidance: call asksteps_get_form first, modify what the user asked for, and send the complete result back. It states the required permission ('forms:write') and names important exclusions (PDF-based forms and unsupported elements are refused). This is strong when-to-use guidance that complements the sibling tools.

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?