Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Ranla

by ai.ranla
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Send test webhook event

send_test_webhook_event

Simulate a webhook event (POST /emails/test) for CI or local webhook testing. Optionally deliver to subscribed endpoints.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eventYesEmail event to simulate (email.received cannot be simulated — send a real inbound message)
deliverNoWhen true (default), enqueue delivery to account webhooks
email_idNoOptional existing email id (msg_…)
webhook_idNoDeliver to this one webhook endpoint only

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYes
payloadNoThe simulated event payload, as a webhook would receive it
deliveredNoTrue when it was sent to webhook endpoints
deliveriesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "delivered": {
+      "description": "True when it was sent to webhook endpoints",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "deliveries": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "endpoint_id": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "error": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "status": {
+            "description": "HTTP status the endpoint returned",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "success": {
+            "type": "boolean"
+          },
+          "url": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "payload": {
+      "description": "The simulated event payload, as a webhook would receive it"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "ok"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write-but-not-destructive profile is covered. The description adds that events can be delivered to subscribed endpoints, a real side effect, but 'Optionally deliver' sits awkwardly against the schema's default-true 'deliver' flag, leaving the default behavior ambiguous.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and the endpoint tucked into parentheses rather than padding the opening. No wasted clauses.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the purpose is clear. However, for a tool that fires real webhook deliveries, the description should clarify the default delivery behavior and any environment restrictions; that gap keeps it at adequate rather than complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the four parameters are fully documented in the schema itself and the baseline is 3. The description adds only the loose notion of optional delivery and nothing about email_id, webhook_id, or the event enum's constraints.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Simulate a webhook event'), pins the underlying endpoint (POST /emails/test), and states the intended scenario (CI or local webhook testing). That is enough to separate it from send_email or create_webhook, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

'for CI or local webhook testing' implies the intended context, but there is no statement of when NOT to use it (e.g. use send_email for real sends) and no named alternative. Usage is inferable rather than prescribed.

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

All Ranla toolsInspect
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.

Resources