simplepages

Forward captured leads to a webhook

add_webhook

Forward every lead captured on a page (pageId) or across a whole website (siteId) to a URL, for Zapier, Make, a CRM or your own endpoint. Enabling a webhook sends a test POST to it first and only enables it if that succeeds, so a URL that isn't reachable is saved disabled rather than silently dropping leads. Use this instead of adding fetch() to the page.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	Public https:// endpoint to POST each lead to. It must answer a test POST with a 2xx before it will be enabled. Leads are sent in full, so plain http, localhost and private addresses are all refused.
`pageId`	No	Attach to a single page (id from list_pages). Give this or siteId.
`siteId`	No	Attach to a whole website, so every page in it forwards leads there (id from list_sites). Give this or pageId. Usually the right choice for a CRM or automation that should cover the whole website.
`enabled`	No	Whether to activate it now (default true, which triggers the test POST). Pass false to save it switched off without testing.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	Yes
`count`	Yes	Webhooks on the page after this one.
`scope`	Yes	Whether this concerns one page or a whole website.
`pageId`	Yes	Set when scope is page.
`siteId`	Yes	Set when scope is site.
`webhook`	Yes
`testStatusCode`	Yes	HTTP status the test POST received, or null if the request could not be made at all.
`verificationFailed`	Yes	True when enabling was requested but the test POST did not return 2xx, so it was saved DISABLED and no leads will be sent to it.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only specify readOnlyHint: falseainer, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the test POST on enabling, the conditional activation (only if test succeeds), and the refusal of unsafe URLs. It does not mention side effects like rate limits or data format, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 two sentences long and front-loads the main purpose, then adds a critical behavioral caveat (test on enable) and a practical alternative. Every word adds value, with no unnecessary repetition or fluff.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's purpose, usage context, alternatives, and the critical enable-test behavior. It slots well alongside sibling tools by clarifying what this one does (add webhook) and how it differs from the fetch approach. The output schema exists elsewhere, so no need to detail return values.

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%, and each parameter is already well-documented in the input schema (e.g., url's test requirement, siteId's choice guidance). The tool description adds minimal extra semantic value beyond the schema, only reiterating the test behavior and the URL constraint already present in schema. Thus, baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: forwarding captured leads to a URL, with specific scope (page or site) and target (Zapier, Make, CRM, or own endpoint). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on webhook creation rather than pages or redirects.

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?

The description explicitly advises 'Use this instead of adding fetch() to the page,' offering a direct alternative. It also provides context on when to use siteId vs pageId, noting 'siteId... Usually the right choice for a CRM or automation that should cover the whole website.' This covers both when to use and how to choose parameters.

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

All simplepages tools Inspect

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

A4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct purpose, with clear differentiation between creating standalone pages vs. adding to sites, and separate analytics for pages, sites, and workspaces.

Naming Consistency4/5

Mostly follows verb_noun pattern, but uses both 'add' and 'create' for similar actions, and 'delete' vs 'remove' inconsistently.

Tool Count4/5

20 tools cover a broad range of functionality (pages, sites, redirects, scripts, webhooks, analytics, leads), which is reasonable but slightly on the higher side.

Completeness3/5

Covers CRUD for most entities, but lacks delete operations for pages, sites, scripts, and webhooks (except redirects), leaving notable gaps.

Resources

Need Help?