gapify-mcp-server

Account Users: Create an Account User

gapify_platform_create_account_user

Create an account user under a Gapify account by providing the user ID and role, assigning administrator or agent access.

Instructions

Create an Account User [Account Users] POST /platform/api/v1/accounts/{account_id}/account_users Auth: Platform app API key (header api-access-token). Body fields: user_id (required), role (required). 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

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": {
      "account_id": "<account_id>",
      "user_id": "<user_id>",
      "role": "<role>"
    },
    "name": "gapify_platform_create_account_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`role`	Yes	whether user is an administrator or agent
`user_id`	Yes	The ID of the user Example: 1
`account_id`	Yes	The numeric ID of the account
`extra_body`	No	Additional JSON body fields to merge into the request (for keys not listed above).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish write (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds genuine value beyond that: the exact auth mechanism (Platform app API key in `api-access-token` header) and the extra_body passthrough channel. It stops short of stating what happens on duplicate calls or what the response contains, but with annotations present this is solid added context.

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 and endpoint, then auth, then body fields — a sensible ordering. The closing sentence about Persian/Farsi text and Arabic-Indic digits is tangential to invoking the tool and costs a little focus, but overall the wording is tight and free of filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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 covers the invocation essentials (auth, path, required body fields) but never says what the call returns or how to interpret success. Given the absence of an output schema, that is a real gap for a create operation, though the input side is adequately covered.

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 all four parameters (account_id, user_id, role, extra_body) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the required body fields and confirms the extra_body escape hatch but adds no syntax, format, or validation detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('Create an Account User') and even pins the REST endpoint, so the agent knows exactly which entity is being created. It does not, however, differentiate this from sibling create operations like gapify_platform_create_user or gapify_create_user, leaving the scope distinction ('account user' vs 'user') to be inferred from the name.

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, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as create_user or list_account_users. The description reads as API reference documentation rather than routing guidance, so the agent gets no help choosing this tool over its siblings.

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

Deploy Server