User Intuition

Create Webhook

create_webhook

Create a webhook for an account or one owned study. Choose interview.completed, study.completed, and/or report.ready events. The signing secret is shown once; store it securely.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`hook_url`	Yes
`study_id`	No
`event_types`	No
`organization_id`	No	Platform admins only: select an organization for this operation. Required when changing another organization’s study or using its wallet.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes	The created webhook. Its signing secret is shown only once.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 1, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / organization_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Platform admins only: select an organization for this operation. Required when changing another organization’s study or using its wallet.",
+  "maxLength": 128,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed10 schema fields changedSep 30, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

addedInput schema / properties / study_id / pattern

Added value: +"^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$"

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

changedOutput schema / properties / result / additionalProperties
```
Previous value: -trueNew value: +{}
```
removedOutput schema / properties / result / properties / signing_secret / $ref
```
Removed value: -"#/properties/result/properties/study_id"
```
addedOutput schema / properties / result / properties / signing_secret / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
removedOutput schema / properties / result / properties / updated_at / $ref
```
Removed value: -"#/properties/result/properties/created_at"
```
addedOutput schema / properties / result / properties / updated_at / description
```
Added value: +"ISO 8601 timestamp."
```
addedOutput schema / properties / result / properties / updated_at / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```

First observedSep 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false). Beyond that, the description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait: the signing secret is returned only once and must be stored securely. That is valuable context the annotations cannot convey, though permissions and idempotency of duplicates are unaddressed.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the scope, event choices, and the one-time secret caveat each earn their place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present, return value detail is not needed, and the description sensibly covers the one thing the output schema cannot guarantee the agent notices (the one-time secret). Only minor gaps remain around duplicate-webhook behavior and permission requirements.

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 only 25%, so the description must carry weight; it does enumerate the three valid event values and clarifies that study_id is optional (account-level vs one owned study). It does not explain that hook_url must be a reachable URI endpoint or clarify the role of organization_id, so compensation is partial.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a webhook') and clarifies the two ownership scopes (account-level or a single study), which tells an agent what the tool produces. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling create/delete/rotate webhook tools, but 'create' is unambiguous.

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 description implies when to use it by listing the selectable event types and the account-vs-study scope, and warns the secret is shown once. It never states prerequisites, when NOT to use it, or how it relates to siblings like test_webhook or rotate_webhook_secret, so usage guidance is only implied.

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

All User Intuition 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?