Toggle a webhook's active flag on or off. Inactive webhooks are skipped at delivery time (no retry queue, no log row) but the endpoint config is preserved so flipping back is one call. Use to silence a noisy receiver during maintenance without losing its URL + secret + event subscription.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| active | Yes | true to enable delivery, false to silence. | |
| org_slug | Yes | Org slug | |
| webhook_id | Yes | Webhook id (from list_webhooks) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that inactive webhooks are skipped at delivery time, produce no retry queue or log row, and that the config is preserved, making the toggle reversible in one call. This gives meaningful side-effect awareness beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two succinct sentences. The first sentence states the action clearly; the second adds behavioral consequences and a practical use case. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, behavior, side effects, and when to use it. There are no obvious gaps in what an agent needs to know to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Parameter schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds contextual meaning to the `active` parameter ('Toggle... on or off') and clarifies the preservation of endpoint config, but it doesn't add significant new info about `org_slug` or `webhook_id` beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb+resource: 'Toggle a webhook's `active` flag on or off.' It clearly distinguishes this from destructive alternatives like delete_webhook by noting that the endpoint config is preserved and flipping back is one call.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear use case: 'Use to silence a noisy receiver during maintenance without losing its URL + secret + event subscription.' It implies when to use this versus deleting/recreating a webhook, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.