gapify-mcp-server

Raw Gapify API request

gapify_raw_request

Destructive

Send custom HTTP requests to the Gapify API for endpoints not covered by generated tools. Specify method, path, query, body, and auth; Persian path digits convert to ASCII; body is UTF-8 JSON.

Instructions

Send an arbitrary request to the Gapify API for endpoints not covered by the generated tools. Path is relative to the base URL (e.g. /api/v1/accounts/1/labels). Uses the user API key unless auth is changed. Persian digits in the path are converted to ASCII; the body is sent as UTF-8 JSON, so Persian text is preserved.

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": {
      "method": "<method>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "gapify_raw_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`auth`	No	Which API key to send	user
`body`	No	JSON body
`path`	Yes	Path relative to the base URL, starting with /
`query`	No	Query string parameters
`method`	Yes	HTTP method

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already disclose destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: default auth key, path-relative-to-base-URL convention, Persian digit conversion, and UTF-8 JSON body handling. It doesn't cover rate limits or error behavior, but for a raw request tool this is solid added value.

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?

Three tightly written sentences with zero filler. The fallback purpose and path convention are front-loaded, and the encoding quirks are noted without digression.

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 raw request tool with five well-documented parameters, an explicit fallback role, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It tells an agent everything needed to construct a valid call without explaining return values, which is appropriate given the absence of an output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds a concrete path example and clarifies that auth defaults to the user API key, providing marginal but useful meaning beyond 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 (send) and resource (arbitrary request to Gapify API) and distinguishes itself from the many generated endpoint tools by explicitly positioning itself as the fallback for uncovered endpoints. An agent can select it correctly without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly says to use it 'for endpoints not covered by the generated tools,' which clearly implies preferring the specific sibling tools when they exist. It doesn't spell out exclusions or list a concrete alternative, but the routing condition is unambiguous.

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

Deploy Server