CueFrame

Verify Webhook

verify_webhook

Idempotent

Re-run ownership verification on a PENDING webhook — one whose endpoint did not echo the challenge at create time (check its verification.reason: token_not_echoed / non_2xx_ / unreachable / ssrf_blocked). After you fix the receiver to reply 2xx echoing data.token, call this to re-send the signed webhook.verify challenge and flip it active IN PLACE (id + secret preserved — no delete/recreate). Returns { id, status:"active"|"pending", verification? }. An already-active webhook returns active unchanged.

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": {
      "webhookId": "<webhookId>"
    },
    "name": "verify_webhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`commandId`	No	Retry identity. A call repeated with the same commandId returns the first result instead of acting twice.
`webhookId`	Yes	webhookId (path).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No
`status`	No	active = ownership verified + receiving events; pending = challenge not echoed.
`verification`	No	Present only when the re-challenge did not verify; `reason` names why (see WebhookCreateResponse.verification).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedOct 28, 2026
- addedInput schema / $defs
```
Added value: +{
+  "__schema0": {
+    "maxLength": 128,
+    "minLength": 1,
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}
```
- addedInput schema / properties / commandId / $ref
```
Added value: +"#/$defs/__schema0"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / commandId / maxLength
```
Removed value: -128
```
- removedInput schema / properties / commandId / minLength
```
Removed value: -1
```
- removedInput schema / properties / commandId / type
```
Removed value: -"string"
```

Changed1 schema field changedOct 22, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / commandId

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Retry identity. A call repeated with the same commandId returns the first result instead of acting twice.",
+  "maxLength": 128,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedOct 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that the flip is IN PLACE with id and secret preserved and no delete/recreate, which is exactly the fact an agent needs since destructiveHint is false but the operation does mutate state. It also names the return shape and the no-op behavior for already-active webhooks, consistent with idempotentHint.

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 key constraint (PENDING only) is front-loaded in the first clause, and every subsequent sentence adds new information: failure reasons, prerequisite fix, in-place semantics, return shape, active no-op. No filler.

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?

Annotations cover safety and idempotency, an output schema exists, and the description supplements both with the state-transition guarantee and error taxonomy. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly or interpret the result is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented there, including retry identity for commandId, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only indirectly implies webhookId semantics through the pending-verification framing and adds no format or sourcing guidance for it.

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 and resource ("Re-run ownership verification on a PENDING webhook") plus the exact precondition and observable state that qualifies. It is unmistakably distinct from create_webhook/update_webhook/delete_webhook siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit when-to-use (endpoint failed to echo the challenge at create time), enumerates the verification.reason values that qualify, and specifies the prerequisite fix ("After you fix the receiver to reply 2xx echoing data.token"). It also covers the when-not case: an already-active webhook returns active unchanged.

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

All CueFrame tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.