Skip to main content
Glama

Activepieces

by com.activepieces.cloud
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

ap_create_table

ap_create_table

Create a new table with an initial set of fields. Types: TEXT, NUMBER, DATE, DATETIME, STATIC_DROPDOWN. DATE and DATETIME both hold an ISO-8601 UTC timestamp; DATETIME additionally shows and edits the time of day.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesThe name of the table
fieldsYesFields to create. Max 100 fields per table.
folderNameNoName of an existing folder to place it in. For a solution of several flows and tables, create the folder with ap_create_folder in an earlier step than the calls that use it (never in the same step, they run at once), then pass the same folderName to each of them.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / folderName / description
      Previous value: -"Name of an existing folder to place it in. For a solution of several flows and tables, create the folder once with ap_create_folder, then pass the same folderName to each of them."New value: +"Name of an existing folder to place it in. For a solution of several flows and tables, create the folder with ap_create_folder in an earlier step than the calls that use it (never in the same step, they run at once), then pass the same folderName to each of them."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / folderName
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Name of an existing folder to place it in. For a solution of several flows and tables, create the folder once with ap_create_folder, then pass the same folderName to each of them.",
+  "maxLength": 255,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the DATE/DATETIME storage-vs-display distinction, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about prerequisites, permissions, side effects, or the folderName timing caveat (which lives only in the schema).

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the type semantics. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and the most consequential detail (type behavior) is not buried.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a create tool with no output schema, the description covers what is created and what the field types mean, and annotations cover the safety profile. It is still thin on usage context (when to create a folder first, how this relates to ap_manage_fields) and says nothing about what happens on success, but the structured fields carry most of the load adequately.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents name, fields, and folderName. The description nevertheless earns above baseline by clarifying the field type enum semantics, notably that DATE and DATETIME both hold ISO-8601 UTC timestamps while DATETIME additionally exposes time of day — meaning the schema does not fully convey.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Create a new table with an initial set of fields') and scopes the operation with 'initial set', which distinguishes it from a field-management tool like ap_manage_fields. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as ap_delete_table or ap_list_tables, so it lands just short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no direct when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named (e.g., ap_manage_fields for later additions, ap_create_folder for placement). Some usage-relevant information is implied by the field-type semantics, particularly the DATE vs DATETIME distinction and the STATIC_DROPDOWN options, but the agent must infer when this tool is the right choice.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Activepieces toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Context Every Agent Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and keep it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources