Skip to main content
Glama

Dock

by ai.trydock

create_webhook

Register a new webhook endpoint on an org. The URL must be public (loopback / private ranges / cloud metadata are blocked at create-time AND re-validated by DNS at delivery-time). Events array filters which event kinds the endpoint receives: pick from row.* / comment.* / member.* / workspace.* / doc.*; an empty array means "none" so always pass at least one. Returns the signing secret exactly once (whsec_… prefixed); store it on the receiver to verify HMAC signatures on incoming requests.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesPublic HTTPS URL to POST events to. Loopback (127.0.0.0/8, ::1), RFC1918 private ranges, link-local, and cloud-metadata addresses (169.254.169.254, etc.) are rejected. Max 2048 chars.
eventsYesEvent kinds to subscribe to. Pick from: row.created, row.updated, row.deleted, row.sealed, comment.added, comment.deleted, member.invited, member.joined, member.removed, member.role_changed, workspace.created, workspace.renamed, workspace.columns_updated, workspace.visibility_changed, workspace.archived, doc.created, doc.updated, doc.heading_added, doc.mention_added.
org_slugYesOrg slug

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses important behaviors: URL validation at creation and DNS re-validation at delivery, empty events array semantics, and the one-time return of the signing secret for HMAC verification. These are critical operational details beyond a basic 'create' action.

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 three sentences, front-loads the purpose, and packs in essential details (URL constraints, events filter, secret handling) without any fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description is complete: it covers the return value (secret), the URL validation behavior, events filtering semantics, and hints at the HMAC verification workflow. No obvious gaps remain for an agent to use it 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains the events array behavior (empty means none, must pass at least one) and the URL delivery-time DNS validation, which are not in the schema's field descriptions. This raises the score.

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 opens with 'Register a new webhook endpoint on an org,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes this creation tool from siblings like update_webhook, delete_webhook, and list_webhooks.

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?

The purpose clearly implies when to use the tool (creating a new webhook). It provides guidance on the events array (must pass at least one) and URL requirements. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus update/delete/rotate counterparts.

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

All Dock 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions that prevent confusion. The main ambiguity arises from send_message vs. the referenced but missing message_teammate tool, and add_column vs. update_surface for schema changes, but these are mostly clarified by the descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming convention is predominantly verb_noun with underscores (e.g., create_workspace, list_rows, update_doc). Exceptions like 'search' and 'address_book' (no noun) and the two-word 'react_to_comment' are minor deviations in an otherwise consistent pattern.

Tool Count1/5

With 68 tools, the surface is far too large for an MCP server, exceeding the 50+ threshold for extreme mismatch. This volume creates excessive selection overhead for agents and suggests the tool set could be consolidated or split into focused servers.

Completeness3/5

The server covers broad functionality across workspaces, docs, tables, HTML, comments, files, webhooks, and billing. However, notable gaps exist: the explicitly referenced message_teammate tool is missing (preventing agent-to-agent waking), and there is no create/upload file tool or create API key tool, which creates dead ends in workflows.

Resources