Skip to main content
Glama

Activepieces

by com.activepieces.cloud
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

ap_update_step

ap_update_step
DestructiveIdempotent

Update an existing step's settings. Provide only the fields you want to change.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
authNoConnection `externalId` from `ap_list_connections`. Pass the plain id, not a template.
skipNoWhether to skip this step during execution
inputNoInput settings for the step (key-value pairs matching the action schema). Reference a prior step's output with {{stepName['output'].field}} (output is nested under ['output'], e.g. {{trigger['output'].body.email}}, {{send_email['output'].id}}). For a continue-on-failure step's error, use {{stepName['error'].message}}.
flowIdYesThe id of the flow
stepNameYesThe name of the step to update (e.g. "step_1"). Use ap_flow_structure to get valid values.
loopItemsNoFor LOOP steps: expression for the items to iterate over
actionNameNoFor PIECE steps: the action to perform. Use ap_research_pieces to get valid values.
sourceCodeNoFor CODE steps only: the JavaScript/TypeScript source code. Must export a `code` function: `export const code = async (inputs) => { ... }`.
displayNameNoNew display name for the step
packageJsonNoFor CODE steps only: package.json content as a JSON string for npm dependencies. Defaults to "{}".
retryOnFailureNoFor CODE/PIECE steps: whether to retry this step on failure.
continueOnFailureNoFor CODE/PIECE steps: set true on the step that can fail (the one whose failure you want to react to), NOT on the recovery step. The flow keeps running on failure and the step gains On success / On failure branches — add handler steps into them with ap_add_step using stepLocationRelativeToParent INSIDE_ON_SUCCESS_BRANCH / INSIDE_ON_FAILURE_BRANCH and parentStepName = this step.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / auth / description
      Previous value: -"Connection `externalId` from `ap_list_connections`. The tool wraps it automatically as `{{connections['externalId']}}`."New value: +"Connection `externalId` from `ap_list_connections`. Pass the plain id, not a template."
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds the patch semantics (unlisted fields are preserved), which is useful context beyond annotations, but it does not explain what the destructive aspect actually overwrites or any permission requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key invocation rule. No filler, though it is arguably under-specified rather than maximally efficient.

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 12-parameter destructive update tool, the description is thin: it omits which settings are mutable, how step types map to parameters (LOOP/PIECE/CODE), and that ap_flow_structure/ap_read_step_settings help resolve values. The exhaustive schema compensates substantially, keeping it at a minimum-viable level.

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% with rich per-parameter docs (auth, sourceCode, continueOnFailure, etc.), so the schema carries the full parameter burden. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing step's settings'), which clearly distinguishes it from creation/removal siblings like ap_add_step and ap_delete_step. However, it never explicitly names or contrasts with those siblings, leaving differentiation to inference.

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?

'Provide only the fields you want to change' gives genuine partial-update (patch) guidance on how to invoke the tool. But it offers no when-to-use vs alternatives, no mention of ap_read_step_settings to inspect current values first, and no prerequisites.

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