Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gapify-mcp-server

gapify-mcp-server

by mh-zeynal
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Accounts: Create an Account

gapify_platform_create_account

Create an account on the Gapify platform by providing an account name; use optional extra fields to include additional data in the API request.

Instructions

Create an Account [Accounts] POST /platform/api/v1/accounts Auth: Platform app API key (header api-access-token). Body fields: name. 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.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "gapify_platform_create_account"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoName of the account
extra_bodyNoAdditional JSON body fields to merge into the request (for keys not listed above).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond that: it specifies the required auth header (api-access-token) and documents that text/ID/number values pass through unchanged with Persian or Arabic-Indic digit handling. It still says nothing about duplicate-name behavior or failure modes, keeping it short of a 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?

Well front-loaded: verb+resource first, then endpoint, auth, body fields, and edge-case notes in a compact block. Every line carries information, with only minor redundancy between the schema-documented extra_body and its restatement here.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the endpoint, the auth requirement, the writable field, and value-encoding caveats. Given annotations carry the safety profile and the schema is fully documented, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description restates "Body fields: name" and the extra_body merge mechanism rather than adding syntax or constraints beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ("Create an Account") and pins the exact endpoint (POST /platform/api/v1/accounts), which cleanly separates it from get_account, update_account, and delete_account. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the create-vs-read/update/delete distinction is unambiguous from the name and verb.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. It never clarifies how create_account differs from the adjacent creation tools like create_account_user or create_user, so the agent must infer routing from the name alone.

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