Public Product Forums

I have a few plugins that collect information to fill out a ticket. The different fields to fill out are slots in the conversational process. The slots have a resolver strategy to pull the possible options from a api. I have the slots set to Infer slot value if possible. However inferring never actually works when a resolver strategy is applied.For a access management plugin, I can say I want access to <exact application name in system> and the plugin will show the first x options. It normally ends with the correct option and says things like, if you mean <exact application name in system> type “yes” or the number in the list. It however always makes the user confirm the option instead of inferring.I am getting around this by throwing a generate_structured_value_action at the beginning after asking for a description of the ask, but it is possible the user won’t provide enough information to determine the correct option and it feels like a hack when slots sh

Is it possible to reference and manipulate a user attribute within a Content Activity? For example: grab a user’s email username@email.com and remove the @email.com so that it returns only username

Hello Moveworks Admins,We're excited to announce that Upload AI Assistant Avatar feature will be available in the Moveworks Setup on 23rd January 2026. 🎨 What's New?You can now upload a custom AI Assistant avatar directly in Moveworks Setup without requiring external image hosting or public URLs. Your custom avatar will appear across all user-facing experiences, including chat applications, embedded assistant, web app, and popup forms.📋 Image Requirements:Format: PNG only File size: Maximum 2 MB Dimensions: Up to 1000 × 1000 pixelsIf no image is uploaded, the default Moveworks AI Assistant avatar will be used. 🌟 How to upload AI Assistant Avatar?Navigate to Organization Details → Tenant Settings → General Information in the left navigation

Whenever I or others on my team use the Content Activity action in Conversational Process, the bot never actually sends a message to the user. What can I do to send a message to the user instead of having the bot always just infer what needs to be said?

Hello Moveworks Admins,We're excited to announce that Permission Checker will be available in the Ingested Knowledge and Files screen on 21th January 2026.🔍 What is Permission Checker?The Permission Checker tool allows Moveworks admins to verify whether a specific user has access to specific knowledge base articles or files by selecting or providing a user’s email address. 🌟 When to use Permission Checker?A user complains that they cannot find information from specific KB articles or files in their search results, even though they should have access Admins have changed permissions, group memberships, or ACL rules in source system and want to confirm they are reflected in Moveworks After updating permission rules in Moveworks, admins need to validate that content permissions are reflected correctly Need to verify that new employees/UAT users

We've just launched a public archive of The Agent Builder newsletter with technical breakdowns, implementation patterns, and real builds from our dev community. Click here to head to the archive. What's inside: Technical deep-dives, real-world examples, code snippets, best practices, and platform updates.Browse the archive anytime or subscribe for inbox delivery at aka.mw/newsletterShout out to ​@Kevin Mok for this amazing resource.Happy building!

📊 How Feedback Is Collected & How to Get All Feedback Data Today, users can give feedback on a bot response in two steps:1️⃣ Thumbs Up / Thumbs Down (Quick Feedback) Users react with 👍 or 👎 on the bot response This action always gets recorded, even if the user does nothing else 📍 Where this data lives Table: interactions Filters to apply: interaction_type = link_click interaction_content = helpful or not helpful ➡️ This captures all feedback clicks, including cases where users do not submit written feedback.2️⃣ Optional Written Feedback (Form Submission) After clicking 👍/👎, users are taken to a feedback form. Submitting the f

Notifications API is listed as part of the future roadmap for Data API here. I am looking for insights into AI Assistant notifications such as Concierge and CSAT. When will this be supported?

Do you have questions about building with Agent Studio? Want to connect directly with our Developer Advocate team?We’re hosting live Developer Office Hours — an open space where you can get help, share feedback, and learn best practices from our developer advocates.These sessions are your chance to:Get hands-on guidance from our Developer Advocate team Troubleshoot challenges in real time Exchange ideas and tips🗓 Upcoming sessions:Nov 13, 2025 — 1:00 PM PT / 3:00 PM CT / 4:00 PM ET Nov 20, 2025 — 1:00 PM PT / 3:00 PM CT / 4:00 PM ET Dec 11, 2025 — 1:00 PM PT / 3:00 PM CT / 4:00 PM ET Dec 18, 2025 — 1:00 PM PT / 3:00 PM CT / 4:00 PM ET👉 Register here to join any sessio

I wanted to get clarification on lifecycle management for custom views created. I created a pilot HR Custom View and shared it only with myself for testing, but I’m not seeing any self‑service way to edit, delete, or re-share that view after it has been created/shared. Based on what I’m seeing, it appears I would need Moveworks support to update/remove/reassign views—which could result in multiple duplicate views as we expand sharing to Little Joe domain admins.   Could you please confirm the following? Is this expected behavior? Once a Custom View is created (and/or shared), is it intentionally not editable/deletable/re-shareable by admins? Is there an admin role or feature we’re missing?

Hi Moveworks Community,Our organization is transitioning from managing distribution lists (DLs) in Active Directory (AD) to managing them entirely in the cloud. While we know Moveworks has native functionality for DL management in AD, we are seeking guidance on whether similar capabilities are available for cloud-based DLs or if they can be adapted to meet our needs.Specifically, we are looking for the following capabilities for cloud-based DLs: Provide the list of owner(s) of a distribution list to a user Allow users to request and receive details of the owner(s) of a specific DL. Provide the list of members of a distribution list to a user Allow users to request and receive the list of members for a specific DL. Delete a distribution list If the owner requests deletion, the DL should be deleted immediately. If

Hey,Our organization is using Moveworks Copilot and Gemini. I am wondering if it is possible to merge both to build something similar to 'Quick GPT,' where users can go to our Moveworks Copilot and ask Gemini for answers.I am thinking of building an Agent Studio plugin and adding triggers like 'Ask Gemini,' but I am wondering if there is a better and more straightforward way.Also, is it possible to build a fallback mechanism where, if the bot cannot find an answer in the internal KB or Forms, it suggests the Gemini plugin?

ScenarioWe’re seeing a small but recurring UX gap in our Moveworks → UKG plugin flow and wanted to check if others have solved this or if there’s a recommended pattern.Current behavior User asks Moveworks to perform an action (example: approve timecard). Plugin detects expired/invalid OAuth token for UKG. Moveworks prompts the user to re-authorize via an auth link. After successful authorization, the user must explicitly type something like “retry approve timecard” to continue. Only then does the plugin re-execute the original action. From the user’s point of view, it feels broken or incomplete — they believe the task should continue automatically once acces

Hey everyone 👋We are excited to announce User Consent Auth in Agent Studio, which lets you securely deploy Agent Studio use cases that respect user permissions and access levels, is now in Preview!What are the capabilities of this launch?Permission Consistency. Ensure users only access data they are permitted to see. Any user interacting with an app through Moveworks does not gain privileged access through a generic service account. User Control. Individual users can grant access to their own data. Unlike JWT where a developer can impersonate any user, this allows users to control exactly what types of data and actions the connector is allowed to interact with. Tokenized Security. Short-lived access tokens are generated and continuously rotated with longer lived refresh tokens to reduce the risk of damage from a privileged access token bei

We’re working on a use case where users request specific software, and our organization maintains a list of available software on a SharePoint site. Our solution uses a compound action: it fetches the software list via HTTP and script actions, then filters and displays results based on what the user asks. We’ve added both positive and negative utterances as well.The issue is that when someone asks for a particular software (for instance, “I need Teams”), our workflow works sometimes. But if the user says something like “I need to install Teams,” the system often triggers an internal plugin—such as installation help forms or knowledge base articles—instead of using our custom plugin. Even though our internal team has disabled some pre-built plugins, we still get unwanted results from forms. This means the intended custom plugin either fails or returns unnecessary or irrelevant information.Sometimes it works (“I need Teams” gives the right result), while other times, lik

Background:In June, before Webhooks were available, setting up instant approval notifications through the Concur API was difficult because Concur doesn’t have native automation tools. At that time, we were told we’d need to regularly poll Concur records to check for updates, since Webhooks weren’t an option yet.Current Situation and Questions: Webhooks Availability: Now that Webhooks are available, can we use them to automatically trigger approval notifications in SAP Concur? In other words: Instead of our bot checking for updates all the time, can Webhooks now handle this automatically? Impact on Our Bot Performance: Given that we would like to use real-time Webhooks (and not scheduled ones), what does this mean for our bot’s performance? Specifically:

ProblemA failure in ingestion from a single application currently stops the entire ingestion flow, preventing updates even when other sources are healthy.Request:Introduce an active–passive failover switch for each application connector within the ingestion pipeline. So if there is an issue with one application the whole ingestion process still completes and only attributes used from the failed application is not updatedBenefitsPrevents full ingestion stoppages Ensures maximum data freshness from available sources

Form update conditions don't support $LENGTH() for string validation. Is this intentional or a limitation? Any workarounds?this is in reference to Rich Ticket Filing. I was trying to do some validation, because ServiceNow cuts off the short description after 160 characters. And we have folks that use that field for the description. Basically, my intention was to show the helper label that explained the limit if the user entered more than a certain number of characters in that field. I tried a few different conditions like:$LENGTH(field_short_description) > 143field_short_description.$LENGTH() > 143field_short_description.$LENGTH > 143and also the one you see in the screenshot, all of them seemed to result in the error “Invalid DSL expression” which makes me think that length isnt available to u

Hey builders!Office Hours #2 is in the books and we went FULL dev mode today 🔥The questions were chef’s kiss, we went deep on the exact pain points you’re hitting in production right now.Here’s everything we crushed:Using a single webhook listener to trigger multiple ambient agent plugins → Use event filters to route one webhook to the right plugin (PTO vs Approval demo’d live) → No more “one webhook per use case”— one gateway listener to handle all plugin triggers “My API returns a giant payload and it has no filtering capabilities” survival guide → Chunking + parallel blocks + LLM actions = 🏃‍♂️ → Pagination patterns in compound actions that work “My connector has way too many permissions” → Always. Provide. Access. Rules Default slot values without prompt engineering? → Optional slots with default fallbacks ar

Here's the situation we face when a user submits time through the Workday Portal: our bot can successfully approve or deny the time off. However, the problem happens when a user submits time directly through the bot. In these instances, the approval/denial process doesn't seem to work as expected. The error we get back is “This event step is not awaiting your action”. When I review the data through the RaaS report, it appears that working time-off requests have two true approvers, whereas those that are not working only have one. The API call we are using to request time off is /api/absenceManagement/v1/{{tenant}}/workers/{{worker_id}}/requestTimeOff.Has anyone experienced this issue before?

Hello,I would like to know if it is possible to add a clickable link for Live Agent Chat inside the Smart Handoff text.Right now, users first choose a team (for example, IT or Finance). Then they choose an option in the second drop-down (for example, “Finance Applications supported by EAS”). After they choose this option, a Smart Handoff text box appears with more details.Today, the Live Agent Chat is shown as a separate option in the drop-down list, and the link is hard coded under each domain. Instead, I would like the Smart Handoff text itself to include a clickable link that will start a live chat with an agent.In other words, when the Smart Handoff text appears (for example, for “Finance Applications supported by EAS”), I would like the phrase “Live Agent Chat” in that text to be a clickable link that opens the live chat.Is this possible to configure in Smart Handoff (for example, by adding a URL or action to the descr

At present, there is no support for analytics related to ambient agents. Although logs of successful notifications are available in the logs section, corresponding analytics data for ambient agent use cases is not accessible. This limitation is impacting the integrations we have implemented to monitor success metrics.Could you please let us know when will you introduce analytics support for ambient agents?

If you use a slot resolver for a conversational slot and set the Slot Inference Policy to Infer slot value if available, it will pull from the User Profile.. for example, their location from ingested user data.  This can be an issue for some plugins where similar data exist but has nothing to do with what the plugin is asking for.  It would also be beneficial to be able to define what each ingested element from the User Profile is, allowing context for Moveworks to better understand when to use those slots.Example:We’ve built a Conversation Flow where one input is a state, and we provide a list of states. If a state matches the user’s profile, the Infer slot value will automatically select that state instead of presenting the choice to the user—even if we add notes in the plugin description, conversation process, and input variable advising not to use the user profile location. This matters because the state they select is inte

Hello Moveworks Admins,We're excited to announce that User Geocodes will be available in the Imported Users screen on 7th January 2026. This new feature provides visibility into user location data, making it easier to troubleshoot location-based answers not getting served and validate identity configuration. 🌏 What are Geocodes?Geocodes are structured location coordinates extracted from location-related fields (city, state, country, zip code) in your identity source during user ingestion. This allows Moveworks to know “where this user is”, which is then used in search and personalization—for example, boosting KB documents that match the user’s region when the user asks a generic question like “what are my benefits?”Read more about Geocodes in User Identity.

 Hey team, we are set to roll out an update on KB gaps widgetTo improve the quality of Knowledge Gaps, new logic will only count interactions as KB gaps when Knowledge/Enterprise Search is considered and no other plugin is used (excluding Smart Handoff).With this update, Total interactions metric within each Topic will drop. Overall total interactions across all Topics will reduce by ~20-30%. This is expected, since the widget will now contain more refined KB gaps that customers can rely upon.