Add a processing step (input, filter, transform, aggregate, custom, or output) to a PipelineFlow pipeline using a pipeline ID, node ID, and node type.
Add processing step (input, filter, transform, aggregate, custom) to pipeline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.