zapier-discovery-mcp
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ZAPIER_API_BASE | No | Overrides the API host (testing, proxies) | |
| ZAPIER_CLIENT_ID | Yes | Your Zapier Partner API client ID |
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": true
} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| search_appsA | Search Zapier's directory of 9,000+ integrated apps by name. Without a query, returns the most popular apps. Use the returned slugs with find_zap_templates. |
| find_zap_templatesA | What do people actually automate with these apps? Returns popular, ready-made Zap templates (by app slug from search_apps — one app or a pair like ['slack','notion']), each with a step chain and a one-click create link. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one searches/returns apps, the other retrieves Zap templates for a given app or app pair. There is no overlap or ambiguity in what each tool does.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: search_apps and find_zap_templates. The naming is predictable and aligned with their respective actions.
With only two tools, the server feels minimal but arguably well-scoped for its stated discovery purpose. It is exactly at the borderline between 'too few' and 'appropriately lean' for the domain.
The core discovery workflow (search apps, then find templates for those apps) is covered, but there are noticeable gaps such as searching templates by keyword/use case or getting detailed app information. Agents can complete the basic flow but may hit dead ends for broader discovery scenarios.