asksteps

asksteps: change the address or visibility of a published form

asksteps_update_publication

Idempotent

Changes the public address (slug), who may find it, or the page password of a form that is ALREADY published. Requires "publish:write". No mandate is needed: nothing new goes online, only the address and the audience change. A form without a page yet answers "not_found" — use asksteps_publish_form first, that is where the address is decided. Renaming keeps the old address as a redirect, so links already in circulation still work. Ask the user before changing a slug: the address is what they have given out.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`slug`	No	New path, e.g. "kontakt". Leave empty to keep the current one.
`form_id`	Yes	The form or funnel id.
`password`	No	Page password. Empty string removes it; leave the parameter out to keep it.
`visibility`	No	"public" (listed and indexable), "unlisted" (only via the link) or "password". Leave empty to keep the current setting.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No	The public address after the change.
`note`	Yes	One sentence for the user, naming what changed.
`slug`	No	The path the page now lives at.
`status`	Yes	Outcome. One of: "updated", "not_connected", "not_found" (the form has no published page yet — publish it first), "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.
`visibility`	No	Who may find it: "public", "unlisted" or "password".

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, the description adds concrete behavioral details: a form without a page returns 'not_found', renaming keeps the old address as a redirect, and nothing new goes online. These details cover failure modes and side effects without contradicting the idempotentHint or destructiveHint 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 five sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and every sentence adds operational value. It avoids restating schema boilerplate while still covering permissions, error behavior, and side effects.

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 output schema exists and parameter descriptions cover 100% of inputs, the description provides all essential operational context: prerequisites, required permission, error condition, side effect, and user-communication guidance. Nothing material is missing for correct tool selection and invocation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters clearly, including empty-string password removal and visibility values. The description adds extra meaning for the slug parameter by explaining that renaming keeps the old address as a redirect and that the user should be consulted before changing it.

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 first sentence names a specific verb ('changes') and resource ('public address (slug), who may find it, or page password') of a form that is already published. It clearly distinguishes this tool from asksteps_publish_form by scoping it to already-published forms.

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 explicitly says to use this tool when the form is already published and directs users to asksteps_publish_form first when no page exists. It also states the required 'publish:write' permission and instructs the agent to ask the user before changing a slug, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use 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?