asksteps

asksteps: replace the questions and branching of a funnel

asksteps_update_funnel

DestructiveIdempotent

Replaces the questions and the branching of an existing funnel. Requires "forms:write". READ IT FIRST with asksteps_get_funnel and send back everything you want to keep — every question you leave out is gone. Design, settings and the end pages are NOT touched unless you include them. Refused for funnels built from a PDF and for anything this format cannot describe; the answer says which.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`spec`	Yes	The complete new funnel. Everything not included is removed.
`funnel_id`	Yes	The funnel id, from asksteps_get_funnel.

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

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes further by spelling out the destructive consequence ('every question you leave out is gone'), what is preserved ('Design, settings and the end pages are NOT touched unless you include them'), and the required 'forms:write' scope.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, permission, required pre-read, destructive warning, preserved surfaces, and refusal conditions. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 very large nested spec object, the description is remarkably complete operationally: it states the prerequisite read, the destructive behavior, what is preserved, the required permission, and refusal cases. Return value is covered by the output schema.

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%, and the schema already provides rich per-parameter explanations. The tool description mostly restates the replacement semantics already present in the schema rather than adding new parameter-level meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair: 'Replaces the questions and the branching of an existing funnel.' It also clarifies scope by saying design, settings, and end pages are untouched unless included, which helps distinguish this from other update tools.

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?

Clear context and exclusions: it instructs to read the funnel first with asksteps_get_funnel, warns that omitted questions are removed, and states that PDF-built funnels are refused. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or conditions for preferring them.

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?