Skip to main content
Glama

Submit Case Action

pega.submit_case_action

Execute actions on existing Pega cases by specifying case ID and action, with optional payloads and attachments for case management.

Instructions

Use this tool to execute an action on an existing case. Required inputs: caseId, action. Optional inputs: content, pageInstructions, attachments, eTag, viewType, pageName, originChannel. Returns: { ok: true, data: } on success. Standard failure format: { ok: false, error: { code, message, suggestion? } }.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
caseIdYesUnique case identifier/handle.
actionYesAction identifier/name to execute.
eTagNoOptional optimistic-lock value sent as If-Match header.
contentNoOptional action payload sent to the upstream endpoint.
pageInstructionsNoOptional page instructions forwarded upstream.
attachmentsNoOptional action attachment operations.
viewTypeNoOptional response shape hint forwarded as query parameter.
pageNameNoOptional page name query parameter used with viewType.
originChannelNoOptional channel hint, for example Web or Mobile.

Implementation Reference

  • The actual implementation of the tool logic, located in the PegaClient class within the client module.
    async submitCaseAction(input: {
      caseId: string;
      action: string;
      content?: Record<string, unknown>;
      pageInstructions?: unknown[];
      attachments?: unknown[];
      eTag?: string;
      viewType?: string;
      pageName?: string;
      originChannel?: string;
    }): Promise<CaseActionResult> {
  • Registration of the tool "pega.submit_case_action" using the framework's defineTool utility.
    export const submitCaseActionToolDefinition = defineTool({
      name: "pega.submit_case_action",
      title: "Submit Case Action",
      description: [
        "Use this tool to execute an action on an existing case.",
        "Required inputs: caseId, action.",
        "Optional inputs: content, pageInstructions, attachments, eTag, viewType, pageName, originChannel.",
        "Returns: { ok: true, data: <action result> } on success."
      ].join(" "),
      inputSchema: submitCaseActionSchema,
      invalidInputMessage: "caseId and action are required",
      execute: async ({ pegaClient }, input) => {
        return withCaseAccessGuard(pegaClient, input, async () => pegaClient.submitCaseAction(input));
      }
    });
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It documents the response format (success/error structure) which adds value, but fails to disclose mutation side effects, optimistic locking failure behavior (despite eTag parameter), or idempotency characteristics of the submit operation.

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?

Well-structured with clear ordering: purpose statement, input categorization, return format. The optional input list is somewhat lengthy but efficiently presented. No redundant or filler text.

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?

Adequately covers the 9-parameter mutation operation with return format documentation, but gaps remain for a complex tool: no sibling relationship context, no side effect disclosure, and no output schema reference to compensate for the complex nested object parameters.

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 has 100% description coverage, establishing baseline 3. The description categorizes inputs as required/optional but adds no semantic depth beyond the schema (e.g., doesn't explain that eTag is for concurrency control or how content structure relates to specific actions).

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?

Clearly states the tool executes an action on an existing case, distinguishing it from sibling 'get' operations (get_case, get_cases, get_case_actions). However, it misses opportunity to clarify the relationship with 'get_case_actions' (which lists available actions vs. this tool which executes them).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

Lists required and optional inputs but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to execute actions vs. when to simply get case data). No mention of prerequisites like knowing available actions beforehand.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/amirmcs/Pega-MCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server