Direct answer
Confirm the API can do the job before you plan the workflow. Integration designs are often drawn on the assumption that two systems can exchange whatever the process needs, and the drawing looks fine until someone finds that a field is not exposed, or that the needed access is not available on your plan. A short readiness check answers this in advance. It lists what the process must read and write and compares that with what each system actually allows. This page is generic on purpose: it names no vendor and makes no claim about any product's API, so use it as questions to put to whichever systems you have. For the data side see system of record for integrations; for access see API credentials and service account setup.
Objects and fields exposed
Start from the process, not the documentation. Write down each piece of data the workflow must read or change, then check that the API exposes it in the way you need:
- Is each object available (for example customers, orders, tickets), and can it be read, created and updated, or only some of these?
- Are the specific fields exposed, including custom fields and status values?
- Can related records be linked or fetched together?
- Are attachments, history and comments included or excluded?
- Does the API return the same data the screen shows, or a subset?
Plan-tier gating
Some systems restrict API access, or parts of it, by subscription level, role or approval process. Ask the system's owner, and check the provider's own documentation for your account rather than assuming. Find out whether API access is included, whether additional cost applies, and whether the limits you need are available to you. Discovering this after a design is agreed is one of the most common causes of rework. If you cannot get a clear answer, treat that as an open risk in the plan.
Authentication
Find out how the integration proves who it is and what it may do. Check which methods are supported, who can create the credentials, whether a dedicated service account is possible and whether permissions can be limited to what the workflow needs. Ask how credentials expire or are renewed, because that decides how the integration is maintained. Credentials should belong to your organisation and not to one person. Never share secrets in email or chat; agree a safe hand-over route.
Rate limits
Systems often restrict how many requests an integration may make over a given time. Ask what the limits are for your account, what happens when they are exceeded, and whether large batches or initial loads are treated differently. Compare them with the volume your process actually generates, including busy periods and one-off catch-up runs. If the limits are tight, the design may need batching, scheduling or a different approach. We state no specific limits here, since they vary by system and change.
Webhooks
A webhook lets a system tell another when something happens, so the integration does not have to keep asking. Check whether webhooks exist, which events they cover, whether they retry when your receiver is unavailable and whether you can verify they are genuine. If events are missing, the alternative is scheduled polling, which is slower and uses more of the rate limit. Decide which events the process really needs, and confirm each one exists rather than assuming.
Sandbox
A sandbox or test account lets you build and check the integration without touching live data. Ask whether one exists, whether it mirrors production behaviour, whether it needs a separate plan and how test data can be created. If none is available, testing happens against live records and needs more caution, such as dedicated test records and reduced permissions. This directly affects the length and risk of the project, and it should be known before you commit to a plan.
Versioning and deprecation
APIs change. Ask how the provider communicates changes, how long older versions are supported and how you would hear about a retirement. Plan for someone to watch these notices, since an integration that works today can break when a version is withdrawn. Record which version the integration uses, and decide who is responsible for reviewing it periodically.
Fallback: CSV, email and manual steps
If the API cannot do what you need, the process does not necessarily fail. Fallbacks include scheduled file exports and imports, structured emails that a workflow can parse, or a defined manual step with a checklist. Each has costs in delay, accuracy and effort, so choose deliberately and record it. Sometimes a fallback shows that a different system, or a custom interface, is the better route; see when a business needs a custom API.
How LATYNEX works on this
LATYNEX is a remote, English-language vendor. We confirm what each system actually exposes before promising a design, and we do not assume a ready-made connector exists between two given tools. We agree one scope and one price in writing. A single workflow across a small number of systems can fit the fixed-scope Automation Sprint (€1,690), once this check has been done. See workflow automation and systems integration.
Questions
Why check the API before designing the workflow?+
Because the design depends on what the systems allow. A missing field, a restricted plan or a tight limit can force a different approach, and it is cheaper to learn that before building.
Who can tell us what our plan allows?+
The account owner or administrator of each system, together with the provider's own documentation for your subscription. Do not rely on a general description of the product.
What if there is no webhook for the event we need?+
Scheduled polling is the usual alternative, with the trade-off of delay and more use of request limits. Confirm the events you need actually exist before choosing.
What if there is no sandbox?+
Test with dedicated test records and limited permissions, and check each run carefully. Plan extra caution and time, since every run touches live data.
Is a CSV fallback acceptable?+
For some processes, yes, particularly where delay is tolerable. Record the trade-offs and who runs it, so it is a decision and not an accident.