Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
zapier-dev-mcp

zapier-dev-mcp

by koleharv
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Run zapier validate

validate_integration

Run schema and style checks on a Zapier integration project to catch issues before publishing. Provides CLI setup guidance if missing.

Instructions

Runs the project's own zapier validate (schema + style checks) via npx. Requires zapier-platform-cli in the project or globally; returns install guidance if missing.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "validate_integration"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesPath to a zapier-platform-cli integration project directory

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the execution method (npx), the dependency requirement, and the error behavior (install guidance if CLI missing). This is good, but it does not describe the output or behavior on validation success/failure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action verb. No wasted words; every sentence adds value (what, how, prerequisite/error behavior).

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the core purpose, execution method, and a key prerequisite/failure mode. It could mention expected output, but is sufficient for selection and invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already describes the single parameter (path to the integration project directory) at 100% coverage. The description does not add further parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it runs the project's `zapier validate` command and specifies the checks (schema + style). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect_integration and lint_integration, which imply different operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for validating a Zapier integration project via zapier validate, and gives a prerequisite (requires CLI, returns guidance if missing). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over lint_integration or other alternatives, nor when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools