Skip to main content
Glama
mh-zeynal

gapify-mcp-server

by mh-zeynal
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Automation Rule: Add a new automation rule

gapify_add_automation_rule

Create a new automation rule for a Gapify account by defining its trigger event, conditions, and actions.

Instructions

Add a new automation rule to account [Automation Rule] POST /api/v1/accounts/{account_id}/automation_rules Auth: User API key (header api-access-token). Body fields: name, description, event_name, active, actions, conditions. Extra fields can be passed via extra_body. Text values may be written in Persian (Farsi) or any other language and are sent unchanged; IDs, numbers and phone numbers may use Persian or Arabic-Indic digits.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoRule name Example: "Add label on message create event"
activeNoEnable/disable automation rule Example: false
actionsNoArray of actions which you want to perform when condition matches, e.g add label support if message contains content help. Example: [{"action_name":"add_label","action_params":["support"]}]
account_idYesThe numeric ID of the account
conditionsNoArray of conditions on which conversation filter would work, e.g message content contains text help. Example: [{"attribute_key":"content","filter_operator":"contains","query_operator":"nil","values":["help"]}]
event_nameNoEvent that triggers the rule. One of: `conversation_created`, `conversation_updated`, `message_created`. Example: "message_created"
extra_bodyNoAdditional JSON body fields to merge into the request (for keys not listed above).
descriptionNoThe description about the automation and actions Example: "Add label support and sales on message create event if incoming message content contains text help"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world write, and the description adds genuinely new context: the exact auth header (`api-access-token`), the endpoint, the fact that extra fields can be merged via extra_body, and that Persian/Arabic-Indic digits and multilingual text are passed through unchanged. It does not cover failure modes, required-vs-optional fields, or what is returned, which keeps it below 5.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the action, then a compact reference block (method/path, auth, body fields, encoding note). Every line carries information, though the bare 'POST /api/...' and 'Auth:' lines are terse reference fragments rather than prose and add some visual noise.

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 an 8-parameter, nested-object write with no output schema, the description covers the endpoint, auth, all body fields, the extra_body escape hatch, and input encoding. It stops short of clarifying which of name/event_name/actions are effectively required at runtime or what a successful response contains, which the absent output schema leaves unaddressed.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: the body-field roster maps to the parameters, extra_body is explained as a merge channel for unlisted keys, and the note about Persian/Arabic-Indic digit handling is a non-obvious input contract absent from the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a new automation rule to account'), and the endpoint path plus bracketed resource tag reinforce that this is a creation operation on the automation_rules collection. Against siblings like gapify_list_automation_rules, gapify_get_automation_rule, gapify_update_automation_rule and gapify_remove_automation_rule, the create action is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and endpoint, and the auth line tells the agent a User API key is required, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to siblings such as gapify_update_automation_rule. An agent can infer the context but must supply the routing logic itself.

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