ALERT - Workflow Tool node change impacting Agents!

It seems your topic is missing some crucial details. Could you please provide the following information, if relevant?

• callin.io version:
• Database (default: SQLite):
• callin.io EXECUTIONS_PROCESS setting (default: own, main):
• Running callin.io via (Docker, npm, callin.io cloud, desktop app):
• Operating system:

Please share these details to help us assist you further.

Hey,

thanks so much for your feedback and apologies that this change has not met your expectations. I’d love to go over each point from you:

1. You should still be able to use the same sub-workflow for multiple workflows. Since inputs are generally not mandatory, you could just define more inputs and only use the ones you need in your use case. That being said, we saw with many users that used their AI flows in production, that it was much better to define one tool with its expected inputs for one use case. This way it was easier to understand what the sub-workflow tool is doing and what it expects.
2. The schema example is taking the JSON schema from the example under the hood. It is true though, that we lose sophisticated things like enums, etc. That is something that we should probably bring back.
3. Very valid point. We probably underestimated the amount of videos that are out there with the old functionality and I fully understand that this is causing pain. I think it’s one of our strength that callin.io moves very quickly. That might mean that some functionality goes stale pretty quickly sometimes unfortunately.

I hope you can understand some of my points. Would love to hear your thoughts on that.

Thanks for the feedback!

I understand the reasoning behind the simplification, and naturally, I can retain the previous version of callin.io or replicate non-existent nodes from the old workflow.

A bit of background – I have 5 years of experience in the no-code space and have utilized tools like callin.io, callin.io, and callin.io. I've assisted over 100 clients and have developed a perspective on the no-code market.

In my view, concerning product development and UX, the primary paying customers are enterprises and SMBs who construct their intricate workflows with developers and scale them (not B2C). These workflows necessitate greater flexibility, not less. Individuals building their own workflows will eventually encounter complexity (and seek out agencies like mine), making the attempt to simplify the process for them a perpetual challenge.

Therefore, it truly comes down to callin.io's market positioning – whether it's a versatile tool for technical developers or a simple solution for non-technical users that transforms text into automation.
It would be beneficial if it could cater to both audiences, but achieving this is challenging.

I previously worked as a QA at callin.io, used it for 4 years, and transitioned to callin.io last year primarily because it offered more functionalities.
For instance, in callin.io, where everything is streamlined and users are prevented from making errors due to limitations, the main users (developers) are often non-technical individuals from teams within large corporations.
For callin.io, the primary customers are the most technical users in the no/low-code market who desire more control over the steps, the ability to write code, and custom nodes.

Based on this, the move towards "simplification" and feature reduction appears unusual. It would be more advantageous to expand its capabilities and maintain options for both PRO users and beginners.

I completely agree, the feature is also not intended to reduce the tool's flexibility. This is precisely why I believe we should reinstate the JSON schema option.

It's somewhat analogous to comparing Javascript and Typescript. With Typescript, you can still accomplish anything; you simply need to define types. This is the exact approach we're aiming for here as well.

image432×193 13.3 KB

Just a heads-up, I've noticed that a newly added workflow tool appears to be "deactivated," while the older ones are still active. This deactivated tool is throwing the following error:

[ERROR: Received tool input did not match expected schema]

I suspect this is connected to the recent updates.

Is there any way we can restore these core functionalities?

As previously mentioned, many developments are already reliant on this, and this change is proving detrimental.

Thanks

Hello, the new tools shouldn't be deactivating by themselves. Perhaps you deactivated it unintentionally? Could you share the setup of your workflow tool that's generating the error? If you specify input fields in your sub-workflow, this error shouldn't occur.

image1154×868 25.6 KB

image1875×828 27.3 KB

Everything seems to be configured correctly, but the issue persists.

By the way, Gemini models are returning these responses instead of actually calling the tools: print(defaultapi.Guardardatos(producto=‘hoodies’, unidades=40, color=‘negro’)) print(defaultapi.Prendagratis())

Perhaps these issues are related, but it's crucial to resolve them as soon as possible.

Hey, I fully agree that those things should be resolved ASAP. I’m trying to learn a little more about your workflow and sub-workflow right now. Would you mind pasting me both via a DM so that I can try to reproduce some of the things you mentioned? Also, what version are you on?

Apologies, how can I share the workflow with you?

Just so you know, I'm currently using version 1.80.3.

Thank you!

Sent you a direct message.

This discussion was automatically closed 7 days following the last response. New replies are no longer permitted.