Tape is becoming AI-native. We’d love your input ✨

One thing I’d love to see from the AI assistant: natural language record creation with gap detection.

Imagine typing “Joe from Joe’s Restaurant needs 100 eggs and 50 bacon, net30, ship to 123 Main St” - and the AI parses that into a client lookup, order record, and line items automatically. Then it pops up asking the questions it couldn’t resolve from context, like carton size or whether they are white or brown eggs.

Unstructured input in, structured records out, smart follow-up for anything ambiguous. That would be a game changer for teams doing intake over the phone or in the field.

We currently use a tasks app to dump new work details into so it doesn’t get lost in the shuffle. This could “put the toys away” so to speak.

4 Likes

Yeah, that sounds really promising! AI could really help here and make Tape even more essential for us.

This AI use cases came to mind that we’ve been discussing in our team over the last few days and that would be especially useful for us:

Create records from natural language
Something like: “Create a meeting next Tuesday at 10 am with this title, these attendees, and this context.” It would be even better if this also worked through voice input.
I think a lot of CRM documentation is missing not because teammates do not care, but simply because they are busy.

AI models and providers
In my team, there is always discussion about which AI model is best. We all started with ChatGPT licenses, then some wanted to switch to Gemini, and now others prefer Claude. In the end, it often feels like a matter of personal preference, and sometimes one provider is simply ahead for a certain use case. It would be great if Tape did not lock users into one model or provider, but instead made it possible to switch depending on what works best.

AI for repeated support questions
We get many similar questions from customers through our ticket system. If an AI agent could handle this like in your example, that would save a lot of time.

I’m sure I could think of many more, but overall, this feels like exactly the right direction, and we’re really excited about it.

9 Likes

What will the monetization strategy be? You can’t just add it for free because of the up-stream costs.

6 Likes

MCP’s suck because of the context penalty. Just point the AI at the developer docs, give it an API key, and tell it to build it’s own skill using bash helpers.

3 Likes

@Leo and Team, this is awesome!

So happy to see you are heading toward this AI-native place with Tape.

I completely agree with the five main areas that you listed for utilizing AI in Tape. I think most of my quick gut responses below are covered by the categories you’ve defined.

Based on conversations I have with clients, the initial AI Requests that I think of would include things such as:

  1. Ability for AI to produce accurate data/reports from plain text requests.
    When the CEO asks for some random KPI that was never explicitly tracked before…but a simple query to AI can understand the company specific data structure and context, then provide a quick answer in a fraction of the time that it would take a human user to go run three reports and calculate an anwser.
    The big nuance here is that the AI can’t just understand overall Tape field type structure to be accurate. It will need to understand the individual client data structure and custom definitions.
    eg. I have one client that would want such ‘quick questions’ answered using their field called Gross Sales Amount while others would probably expect Net Sales values to be reported on.
    How is the org specific AI memory structure built so that the AI can learn to get this right without having to ask for explicit clarification every time?

  2. Ability for AI to provide high level summarization of data, or resource allocation and prioritization.
    I think of this as the AI being able to understand everything that is tracked as needing to happen, and then being able to accurately tell users what are the most important activities they should be working on.
    In these early days of AI, lots of people don’t really understand how to tell AI to ‘go do things,’ but rather, they want AI to validate or tell them what they should be doing.
    This can get fuzzy in a hierarchical data environment because these requests may require analyzing info from more than one app/data structure within a Tape account.

  3. Ability to recommend/add effective automations without explicit prompting.
    A major frustration with low-code platforms like Tape is that the tool doesn’t automatically handle ‘easy’ things like checking for/avoiding duplicates.
    Users shouldn’t have to build new Dupe Check flows every time they set up a Contacts app. Or they shouldn’t have to think about adding an Overdue Task Reminder flow anytime a Task app is created.
    It would be great to see an AI tool that can understand the context or desired end result of what is being built, then make recommendations on automations to achieve that goal without any developer having to sit down and remember/build it all manually.

  4. Ability to recommend/add effective automations from plain text.
    Much like the example above, but if a developer does think of something and wants to prompt in plain text they should be able to. It would be great to have the ability to just say “add a email and phone value searches to the duplicate check automation” then the AI understands what is needed there. It needs to know how to get clarity when needed and then build it for the user.

  5. Ability to perform ‘health checks’ and proactively flag if calculation fields or automations are broken in a system. Bonus points if it can provide recommended fixes for the flagged issues.

  6. Ability to create an official ‘onboarding process’ when AI Agents are created.
    We’ve experienced many frustrations when AI tools try too hard to create a seemingly simple and fast process to get up and running. If I onboard a new human team member, I expect several hours will be required to teach them the context and expectations of their assigned job role. When AI Agents are treated that same way, they can be extremely successful. But when there is no opportunity to provide a detailed set of instructions, feedback, and proper onboarding, the only possible outcome is error and frustration. Please don’t allow creation and deployment of ‘Agents’ that get trusted with important business data with only two sentences of instructions.

There is much more that could be said here, but I’ve rambled enough for now.

I’m very excited to see where this conversation goes and what the genius minds behind Tape create for this community.

5 Likes

I should also add, for me it is very important that there are clear differences between AI features that are explicitly intended to help end users versus AI that is designed to help developers and ‘super admins’ of a Tape organization.

If I am a developer putting fields together while building a Projects app, I would like to be able to say something such as, “I need a sum total of all invoices connected to this project.” The AI should understand that it needs to add a calculation field getting a mathematical sum from the related items. It needs to know how to reference centralized Tape documentation on how calculation fields work to do this properly.

If I am an end user, however, and I’m just looking at a table front end layout of that Projects app in a Tape workspace and I asked the same question, I wouldn’t want an AI to run off and add a calculation field (potentially duplicating something already there). I would want this AI use case to simply run a filter, pull a report, and display an answer for quick reference, but not change any app structure.

That is probably covered in your differentiation between “build with AI” and “AI Agents”…but a clearly defined and separate process for using those AI features will be critical in my estimation.

2 Likes

A few things I’d really love to see.

It would be great to have a chat experience similar to Claude or ChatGPT, where you can talk through ideas and then turn the outcome into records in Tape. For example, if I’m planning an offsite, I could work everything out in chat first. Once the plan is ready, it could be transferred into Tape automatically with the event details, the members involved, and the related tasks.

Creating or updating records from natural language +1

Skills or something similar would be a huge improvement because you wouldn’t need to re-explain the same context every time. The AI could already know how I work, what kind of output I need, or what style to use.

An agent for my daily task overview would also be incredibly useful. It would be great to get a clear overview of all the tasks my team has planned for today, along with their current status, so I can immediately see what is on track and what needs attention.

Thanks for the opportunity to share feedback. I really appreciate that we’re always asked for input, and it’s also really cool to read the ideas other people in the community have.

P.S. And for the Tape team: an AI that summarizes all the feature ideas in this post :wink:

3 Likes

I’m excited about this!!

5 Likes

This is exciting!

We’ve leveraged some workflows using AI, both helping us to create incredible tools, as also integrate to Tape, receiving clean data from AI, OCR extracted.

From this OCR experience, I would add that it would be awesome if AI could also read the files inside Tape, and maybe structure data into other fields / apps from this.

Offering an external chatbot for general public to question things after confirming ID, or any user if asking public apps.
In this use case, I am thinking about a person who wants to know about some application made using Tape webforms( for example), and the chatbot can search for the application and answer the user.

We understand AI needs an accurate drive, so the success of this project will depend on how each tool can be driven by the developer or master user, what will reinforce the necessity of considering user levels for AI usage and setup.

I see a great future ahead, I am happy with what I see!

:brazil: :brazil: :brazil:

2 Likes

What about a native CLI? :slight_smile:

2 Likes

Thanks a lot, everyone. Your thoughtful comments already make a real difference. This is exactly the kind of input that helps us build something that doesn’t just sound useful, but actually fits into your day-to-day work. :100:

@andreas-globi thanks as well for sharing your experience with MCP’s, and for the very fair question on monetization. We haven’t made final decisions on that yet. Right now, we’re watching the market closely for fair and flexible model options.

So if any of you come across a provider or model worth looking into, feel free to drop it here too.

Please keep sharing. Even a single sentence like “the part that kills my workflow is X” gives us a lot to work with and helps us understand which AI capabilities would create real value inside Tape.

Thanks again. It’s really amazing to see this engagement!

Best,
Leo

5 Likes

Sounds brilliant. A few things that would be really useful:

Being able to analyse attachments within items, like PDFs, images or documents, and then summarise them or answer questions based on the file.

It would also be great if AI could look across linked items, comments, activity history and attachments, so it understands the full context rather than just one field or one item.

Another really useful thing would be AI suggesting next steps or spotting missing information. For example: “This task is missing X” or “This project looks blocked because X is overdue.”

Summarising long item histories, comments or meeting notes into something short and useful would also be really helpful.

And being able to ask questions like “What are the biggest blockers across active projects?” or “Which tasks have gone quiet in the last 14 days?” would be great too.

1 Like

LLMs will become commodity over time. Would be great if users can bring their own LLM and connect it. Especially given the requirements in Data Privacy, they could hook up their own AI instance.

So clients Tape instance hook up to their BYOAI cloud service?

(I mean thats what we do right now in tape automations using external AI.)

The real difference - not just for AI, but also for building, running and maintaining Tape Apps - would be to get access to calculation field code and tape automations via API too.

3 Likes

I am using AI to analyse data in Tape already. But my approach seems a little different: I use the API function from the workflow to connect to my own API server. This server connects with my N8N environment. In N8N I can connect not only to almost every AI provider, but also many other services. The response from N8N is structured and my API server will return this JSON to the workflow. In the workflow fields are updated.
A direct connector from N8N to Tape could be helpful to create AI workflows without the need to use the API. I know it also possible to do this using a webhook, but it is less secure so not preferred.

2 Likes

Thanks @knobel for your feedback and for sharing your setup!

Thanks as well, @dirk_s for your ideas.
And good news, writing scripts for calculation fields via the API already works: Calculation Field | Tape Developers

Hi @andreas-globi

I’ve been following you for years, and your take on MCP’s really stuck with me.

I’d mostly thought MCP’s were just the right way to connect AI to tools, but your post made me rethink that and look into it a bit more.

When you say “context penalty”, do you mean that MCP’s load a lot of context upfront, things like tool schemas, API descriptions and instructions, even when only a small part is actually needed for the task?
Since that context is defined by the MCP provider, it ends up feeling like a bit of a black box. You can’t really see what’s actually being added and that could naturally make things more expensive and less accurate, since the model has to work through a lot of irrelevant information?

I’d also love to understand your alternative a bit better. Could you walk me through what you mean by pointing the AI at the developer docs, handing it an API key, and letting it build its own skill with bash helpers? Does that mean the AI, via the skill, gets to decide for itself what context it actually needs for this tasks, rather than having everything loaded upfront the way an MCP does it?
In that setup, does the skill ever need to go back and re-check the docs to see if anything’s changed, or is that more of an edge case?

It would be really interesting to hear if I’m asking the right questions here. Thanks for sharing your take, it’s really got me thinking.

3 Likes

Hey everybody,

I just wanted to drop a note saying that myself and @Martin_E have launched a new product called Syncello which brings powerful AI features to Tape.

4 Likes

When you connect an MCP server to your model, it adds a lot of context to every session, whether you need that MCP in the current session or not. When you add a few MCP servers, your available session context can drop by noticable amounts - and the LLM outputs also start to degrade because your context is full of irrelevant information.

Skills on the other hand are loaded only as-required. The initial context only gets awareness of the existence of available skills, so the initial context is hardly affected at all. You can have many skills and your initial available context is almost like on a virgin install.

What I did for Podio, InfoLobby, and Notion for example is something like this:

Create a skill for InfoLobby so you can interact with the API when needed. I have added my API key to my environment as 'INFOLOBBY_API_KEY'. 

You can find the developer docs at: https://infolobby.com/api-docs. 

Read all the docs and write me this skill, and call it 'infolobby-api'. I'd prefer if you used plain bash and curl to interact with the API.

That’s it. Your LLM can now use the API. The hardest part is adding your API key to your environment variables.

As you use the skill, you might find that there are a few issues. Not a problem. Use every bad session as learning, eg:

I noticed you struggled a bit with XXX. 

Please update the skill with your learnings from this session.

At the end of the day, LLM’s aren’t complicated and training comes down to just a few markdown files. Instead of just using your LLM for your projects, use them for the LLM itself as well.

One last tip:

If you have multiple LLM’s, don’t duplicate your work. Put all skills and agent files in one place (that gets backed up regularly), and then just symlink them to .claude .codex .gemini etc. (also symlink AGENTS.md to CLAUDE.md for Claude).

In individual projects, you again have an AGENTS.md file (symlinked to CLAUDE.md) with project-specific notes.

That way ALL your LLM’s work the same way.

9 Likes

Thanks for taking the time @andreas-globi, that makes sense.
The “loaded upfront vs only when needed” distinction is much clearer now.

I like the idea that skills can improve over time based on real sessions.

One thing I’m still curious about is how you avoid a skill growing too much as you keep updating it with learnings from real sessions. How do you decide what should live inside the skill itself, versus what it should look up from docs or other sources only when needed?

1 Like

I’ve never had a problem with skills getting too big yet. I guess I’ll cross that bridge when I get there.

3 Likes