Append a new step to an automation to control its workflow. Specify the step type and configuration to add actions like sending emails, waiting, or setting conditions.
Append a step to an automation (POST /automations/:id/steps).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The automation id. | |
| key | No | Optional step key for referencing in connections. | |
| type | Yes | Step type, e.g. 'send_email', 'wait', 'condition'. | |
| config | No | Step configuration. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a step is appended and includes the POST endpoint, but does not mention prerequisites like an existing automation, validation of type/config, response behavior, or auth requirements. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and including the endpoint for clarity. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple append operation, the description and fully documented schema are mostly adequate. However, without an output schema or annotations, it omits what response is returned and any constraints on valid step types/configurations, leaving the agent with some ambiguity about expected behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema documentation covers 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter details beyond the endpoint's id path, but the schema already documents id, key, type, and config sufficiently.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb ('Append'), a resource ('a step'), and a target ('an automation'), reinforced by the endpoint. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like update_automation_step and delete_automation_step because it signals an add-at-the-end operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is implied by 'Append a step to an automation', but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not mention that update_automation_step should be used to modify an existing step or delete_automation_step to remove one, leaving the agent to infer routing from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.