Skip to main content
Glama

BorealHost

by ai.borealhost

create_webhook

Register a webhook endpoint for platform events.

Events (backup failures, security notices, hosting incidents, billing) are POSTed as JSON, signed with X-BH-Signature (HMAC-SHA256 of the raw body). The signing secret is returned ONCE. Categories: billing, security, hosting, decommission, general — empty list means all. Endpoints auto-disable after 20 consecutive failures.

Requires: API key with write scope.

Returns: {"id", "url", "events", "secret", "message"}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes
eventsNo

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses that events are POSTed with HMAC-SHA256 signature, the secret is returned once, empty events list means all events, endpoints auto-disable after 20 failures, and write scope is required. This is thorough and beyond typical expectations.

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?

The description is compact yet dense, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value. The return format is clearly listed, and the organization into short paragraphs aids readability.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description covers everything needed: authentication, event categories, signing, secret handling, auto-disable, and return structure. It is self-sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0% for both parameters, but the description adds meaning: it explains the 'events' parameter with categories (billing, security, hosting, decommission, general) and the empty-list behavior. The 'url' parameter is implied as the endpoint, though no explicit format guidance is given. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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?

The description states 'Register a webhook endpoint for platform events', which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_webhook, list_webhooks, and test_webhook by indicating a create operation.

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?

Provides context such as required API write scope, event categories, and behavior after creation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All BorealHost toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools have overlapping boundaries, such as add_domain_dns vs manage_dns for DNS records, create_backup vs create_snapshot vs create_b2_snapshot for saved states, and write_file vs upload_file for file writing. Most tools are distinct, but these near-duplicates require agents to read descriptions carefully to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming pattern is mostly consistent verb_noun in snake_case (e.g., list_* , create_*, delete_*), but there are noticeable deviations: 'add' vs 'create' for similar operations, 'delete' vs 'remove', and outliers like manage_dns, whoami, and scale. The overall style is readable but not perfectly uniform.

Tool Count2/5

144 tools is far beyond the 'too many' threshold and would be unwieldy for agents to navigate. While the server covers a broad hosting platform with many distinct resources, the sheer number makes it difficult for each tool to earn its place, and many are simple list/get variants that could be consolidated.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is remarkably comprehensive, covering site lifecycle, domains/DNS, compute instances/volumes, backups/snapshots, file management, databases, WordPress administration, email, security, monitoring, billing, webhooks, and support. A notable gap is the lack of a direct list_sites tool—agents must infer site slugs from list_subscriptions—but overall the domain is well covered.

Resources