Design of the Action Connector Layer in Enterprise Agentic Workflow Automation Platforms

Authors

  • Nitin Garg

Keywords:

Action connectors; agentic workflow automation; enterprise integration; tool execution; authorization; action contracts; service failures

Abstract

An enterprise agent may produce a valid tool call while the connected system rejects the request, accepts it for later processing, or changes a record without returning confirmation. The action connector layer must preserve these distinctions. This article develops a design model for that layer by analyzing recent research on Application Programming Interface (API) use, stateful tool execution, and agent security. It specifies an action contract with typed inputs, preconditions, an authority scope, an expected effect, and defined outcomes. The model classifies integrations by credential ownership and the extent of control over the service interface. It then relates validation errors, authorization failures, provider rejections, and uncertain execution states to permissible agent responses. A versioned contract provides multiple agents with a common definition of an action, while the connector enforces permissions and interprets the external response. The proposed specifications support connector review, provider changes, and the diagnosis of failures across enterprise workflows.

References

[1] K. Basu, I. Abdelaziz, S. Chaudhury, S. Dan, M. Crouse, A. Munawar, V. Austel, S. Kumaravel, V. Muthusamy, P. Kapanipathi, and L. Lastras, “API-BLEND: A comprehensive corpora for training and benchmarking API LLMs,” in Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, vol. 1, 2024, pp. 12859–12870, doi: 10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.694.

[2] S. G. Patil, H. Mao, F. Yan, C. C.-J. Ji, V. Suresh, I. Stoica, and J. E. Gonzalez, “The Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL): From tool use to agentic evaluation of large language models,” in Proceedings of the 42nd International Conference on Machine Learning, vol. 267, 2025, pp. 48371–48392. [Online]. Available: https://proceedings.mlr.press/v267/patil25a.html

[3] J. Lu, T. Holleis, Y. Zhang, B. Aumayer, F. Nan, F. Bai, S. Ma, S. Ma, M. Li, G. Yin, Z. Wang, and R. Pang, “ToolSandbox: A stateful, conversational, interactive evaluation benchmark for LLM tool use capabilities,” arXiv, 2024, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.04682.

[4] S. Yao, N. Shinn, P. Razavi, and K. Narasimhan, “τ-bench: A benchmark for tool-agent-user interaction in real-world domains,” arXiv, 2024, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.12045.

[5] Z. Guo, S. Cheng, H. Wang, S. Liang, Y. Qin, P. Li, Z. Liu, M. Sun, and Y. Liu, “StableToolBench: Towards stable large-scale benchmarking on tool learning of large language models,” in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024, 2024, doi: 10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.664.

[6] N. Garg, “Agentic AI for enterprise workflow automation: Impact and architectural principles for multi-agent orchestration,” International Journal of Research in Commerce and Management Studies, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 122–136, 2026, doi: 10.38193/IJRCMS.2026.8309.

[7] N. Garg, “The role of humans-in-the-loop in hybrid automation systems based on generative artificial intelligence,” Australian Journal of Science and Technology, vol. 10, no. 2, 2026.

[8] F. Jia, T. Wu, X. Qin, and A. Squicciarini, “The task shield: Enforcing task alignment to defend against indirect prompt injection in LLM agents,” in Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, vol. 1, 2025, pp. 29680–29697, doi: 10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.1435.

[9] Q. Zhan, Z. Liang, Z. Ying, and D. Kang, “InjecAgent: Benchmarking indirect prompt injections in tool-integrated large language model agents,” in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024, 2024, pp. 10471–10506, doi: 10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.624.

[10] H. Zhang, J. Huang, K. Mei, Y. Yao, Z. Wang, C. Zhan, H. Wang, and Y. Zhang, “Agent Security Bench (ASB): Formalizing and benchmarking attacks and defenses in LLM-based agents,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://proceedings.iclr.cc/paper_files/paper/2025/hash/5750f91d8fb9d5c02bd8ad2c3b44456b-Abstract-Conference.html

Downloads

Published

2026-11-13

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Garg , N. . (2026). Design of the Action Connector Layer in Enterprise Agentic Workflow Automation Platforms. International Journal of Computer (IJC), 57(1), 711-717. https://www.ijcjournal.org/InternationalJournalOfComputer/article/view/2589