PipelineFlow

add_node

Add a processing step (input, filter, transform, aggregate, custom, or output) to a PipelineFlow pipeline using a pipeline ID, node ID, and node type.

Instructions

Add processing step (input, filter, transform, aggregate, custom) to pipeline.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "pipeline_id": "<pipeline_id>",
      "node_id": "<node_id>"
    },
    "name": "add_node"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`params`	No	Node parameters, mappings, or filters.
`node_id`	Yes	Unique node identifier.
`node_type`	No	Type of processing node.
`pipeline_id`	Yes	Target pipeline ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 21, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but delivers little: it does not state side effects, permissions, whether adding a node modifies the pipeline irreversibly, or idempotency. 'Add' implies a mutation, but no operational context is provided.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word contributes to conveying the tool's action.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested 'params' object, the description is too thin. It does not cover side effects, prerequisites, or how nested parameters relate to node types, leaving the agent under-informed despite good schema coverage.

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%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters and the node_type enum. The description lists some types but adds no syntax, constraints, or required-parameter guidance beyond the schema, so 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 'Add' and resource 'processing step ... to pipeline', making it distinguishable from siblings like create_pipeline or run_pipeline. However, it does not explicitly differentiate when to choose this over connect_nodes or create_pipeline, and its enumerated types omit 'output' which is present in the schema enum.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. The description only implies usage from the action, leaving the agent to infer whether this is the right tool versus connect_nodes or create_pipeline.

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

Deploy Server