Skip to main content
Glama
mh-zeynal

gapify-mcp-server

by mh-zeynal

Automation Rule: Update automation rule in Account

gapify_update_automation_rule

Update an existing automation rule in your Gapify account by changing its name, trigger event, conditions, or actions.

Instructions

Update an automation rule in the account [Automation Rule] PATCH /api/v1/accounts/{account_id}/automation_rules/{id} 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
idYesThe ID of the automation rule to be updated.
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

A3.8/5.0
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), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: the literal HTTP method, the required User API key header, the merge behavior of extra_body, and that Persian/Arabic-Indic digits are passed through unchanged. It does not explain what happens to fields left unset on a PATCH, which is the one behavioral detail still missing.

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 verb, resource, and endpoint, and the remaining lines are dense with actionable facts. The explicit re-listing of body fields is mildly redundant against a 100%-covered schema, keeping it just under top marks.

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 9-parameter, nested-object mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers auth, transport, the principal body fields, an escape hatch for unknown fields, and text/digit encoding — enough for correct invocation. The remaining hole is update semantics (partial vs full) and whether existing rules' unmentioned fields are preserved.

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 parameter baseline is 3, and the description does duplicate the field list rather than extend it. However, the notes on extra_body for unlisted keys and on Persian/Arabic-Indic digit handling convey non-obvious input semantics that the schema does not encode, which lifts it above the baseline.

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 ("Update an automation rule in the account") and pins it to PATCH /accounts/{account_id}/automation_rules/{id}, which unambiguously separates it from gapify_add_automation_rule, gapify_get_automation_rule and gapify_remove_automation_rule. It stops short of naming a sibling or contrasting scope, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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 only implied by "update": an agent can infer this is for modifying an existing rule, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over add/remove, nor whether the update is partial or a full replacement. Given this is a PATCH, the absence of any partial-vs-full guidance is a real gap.

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