Tulina

lemlist_webhook

Webhooks — push lemlist events to a URL of yours (/hooks).

Args by op:

list: no argument.
add: target_url + optional event_type (ONE event: emailsReplied, linkedinInviteAccepted, enrichmentDone, signalRegistered… ~70 of them; omit to subscribe to all), secret, campaign_id (narrow to one campaign), is_first (first occurrence per lead only), zap_id (tag the hook as coming from a given Zap).
delete: hook_id.

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": {
      "op": "<op>"
    },
    "name": "lemlist_webhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`op`	Yes
`_org`	No	Org (id) de CET APPEL. `oto_list_orgs()`.
`_group`	No	Équipe (id) de CET APPEL, sous son org parente.
`secret`	No
`zap_id`	No
`_run_id`	No	OBLIGATOIRE à chaque appel dès `run_start` ou `data_claim_next` : sans lui, l'écriture sur une ligne réservée est refusée. Hérité seulement si le serveur tient un run actif — n'y compte pas.
`hook_id`	No
`_project`	No	Projet (id) de CET APPEL — jeton PRIMAIRE. `oto_project(op='list')`.
`is_first`	No
`_instance`	No	Instance de connecteur PRÉCISE (un credential exact). `oto_instance(op='list')`.
`event_type`	No
`target_url`	No
`campaign_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With zero annotations the description carries the full load and does deliver real behavior: omitting `event_type` subscribes to all ~70 events, `is_first` limits delivery to the first occurrence per lead, `campaign_id` narrows scope, `zap_id` tags the hook's origin. What it omits is the risk profile — nothing says `delete` is irreversible or what permissions/secrets are required to receive payloads.

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?

The one-line purpose is front-loaded and the op-grouped bullets are scannable with zero filler. The trailing ellipsis in the event list and the unexplained bare `secret` are small inefficiencies rather than bloat.

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?

For a 13-parameter, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the definition covers the operation-specific inputs well but leaves gaps an agent must guess at: what `list` returns, whether `delete` is permanent, and what the `secret` actually does (signing vs. verification). Adequate but not complete for a mutating admin tool.

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 only 38%, yet the description gives semantics for the parameters that matter most: `event_type` is constrained to exactly one event with concrete enum examples and an omit-means-all rule, plus meaning for `is_first`, `campaign_id`, `zap_id`, `secret`, `hook_id` and `target_url`. It does not explain the tenancy/scoping parameters (`_org`, `_group`, `_project`, `_instance`, `_run_id`), though the schema documents those itself.

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 first sentence names a concrete verb+resource (push lemlist events to a URL you own) and the args block enumerates the exact operations (list / add / delete), so an agent can distinguish it from every lemlist_* sibling without opening the schema.

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?

The per-op argument breakdown effectively implies which op to pick and what each needs, which is stronger than nothing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance (e.g. list before add, when to prefer one hook per campaign vs. a global hook) and no exclusions or prerequisites relative to alternative tools.

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

All Tulina 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.

Resources

Need Help?