Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
anythink-cloud

Anythink-MCP

Official
by anythink-cloud
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Remote

Workflows: step add

workflows_step_add

Add a step to a workflow by setting a unique key and JSON action parameters; the step remains unlinked until you mark a start step and chain the rest.

Instructions

Add a step to a workflow. Params are the action's settings as JSON, e.g. {"script":"return {}"} for RunScript or {"entity":"orders","data":{...}} for CreateData. The new step is unlinked: set start on the workflow's first step and chain the rest with workflows_step_link. For FileHandler or Integration steps, workflows_file_handler_add and workflows_integration_add build the params for you.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYesStep key (unique identifier)
nameNoStep display name
startNoSet as start step
actionNoAction type: ReadData, CreateData, UpdateData, UpsertData, DeleteData, CallAnApi, RunScript, Condition, SendAnEmail, SendACommand, SendPushNotification, FileHandler, Integration (for Integration, prefer 'integration-add')
paramsNoStep parameters as JSON
enabledNoEnable step immediately
workflow_idYesWorkflow ID. Find it with workflows_list.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.37
    • changedInput schema / properties / workflow_id / description
      Previous value: -"Workflow ID"New value: +"Workflow ID. Find it with workflows_list."
  2. Addedv0.2.27

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false). The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the new step is created unlinked and must be wired up separately via start/link. It does not mention auth requirements or error behavior, but the added lifecycle detail is valuable.

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, then params format, then the linking/alternatives note. Every sentence carries distinct, actionable information with no waste.

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?

For a 7-param, fully-documented mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the non-obvious parts an agent needs: params encoding, the unlinked lifecycle, and correct alternative tools. Nothing essential to a correct call is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description goes further by giving concrete params JSON examples for RunScript and CreateData and pointing to helper tools for FileHandler/Integration params. This meaningfully clarifies the otherwise opaque 'params as JSON' field.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a step to a workflow') and immediately distinguishes itself from related siblings by naming workflows_step_link, workflows_file_handler_add, and workflows_integration_add. An agent can tell exactly what this does versus those tools.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use the file-handler and integration builders for FileHandler/Integration actions rather than this tool, and chain steps with workflows_step_link. It also clarifies the unlinked-start condition, which is the key usage nuance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools