Configure webhooks for an app. Hydration webhooks are called when actors subscribe to topics. Trigger webhooks are called when messages are published.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| appId | Yes | App ID to configure webhooks for | |
| triggerWebhook | No | Trigger webhook config - called when messages are published | |
| hydrationWebhook | No | Hydration webhook config - called when actors subscribe to pre-populate state |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavior of the webhooks themselves (when they fire) but not the behavior of the configure operation—e.g., whether it overwrites existing config, whether it's idempotent, what authorization is needed, or what it returns. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each clause adds value by explaining the two webhook types. There is no redundancy or filler.
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?
The description covers the core purpose and distinguishes the webhook types, but given no annotations, no output schema, and nested config objects, it lacks crucial context: the structure of the webhook config objects, update semantics, and return behavior. This is minimally complete for a configuration tool.
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?
The input schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, including detailed explanations of triggerWebhook and hydrationWebhook. The tool description merely restates those semantics ('Hydration webhooks are called when actors subscribe...') without adding new meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 pair ('Configure webhooks for an app') and clearly distinguishes the two webhook types (hydration and trigger) with their invocation triggers. This sets it apart from sibling tools like get_webhook_config (read) and list_webhook_dlq (monitor).
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 explains when each webhook type is relevant (subscription vs. message publish), providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_webhook_config for reading current configuration, so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.
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 follow a clear resource-action pattern, but create_actor, create_agent, and create_orchestrator could be confused, as agents and orchestrators are specialized actors. Similarly, publish and dispatch_task both send messages to topics, though descriptions clarify. Overall, boundaries are mostly distinct.
All tools use the nolag_ prefix with consistent verb_noun snake_case naming. Verbs include create, delete, get, list, update, set, retry, dispatch, publish, generate, and configure. No mixed conventions are present.
At 35 tools, this server exceeds the recommended range for a typical MCP server. While each tool serves a purpose, many CRUD operations could be consolidated (e.g., create_actor, create_agent, and create_orchestrator could be one tool with a type parameter). The count feels heavy.
The toolset covers core lifecycle operations for apps, actors, rooms, scopes, and webhooks, plus messaging, task dispatch, blackboard state, and agent event streaming. Minor gaps exist (no explicit agent-specific update, no webhook delete), but agents can work around these with general actor/app operations.
