VHGENGINE

by app.railway.up.engine-production-3bdc

get_webhook

Read-only

This account's webhook (url + last delivery status; never the secret). Free read.

    Args: api_key (read scope). Cost=free. Returns {url, created_at, last_delivery_status,
    last_delivery_at, events}. Errors: unauthorized, not_found (none registered),
    rate_limited.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`api_key`	No	API key for this call. Omit to fall back to the Authorization: Bearer / X-API-Key request header (streamable-HTTP only), then the VHGENGINE_API_KEY env var (the stdio default). No key resolvable -> unauthorized.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No	The registered endpoint.
`events`	No	Event types being delivered.
`created_at`	No	Registration time, ISO-8601 UTC.
`last_delivery_at`	No	When that attempt happened, ISO-8601 UTC.
`last_delivery_status`	No	Status of the most recent delivery attempt.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds critical behaviors: it never returns the secret, is free, requires read-scoped API key, and lists specific errors (unauthorized, not_found, rate_limited). This rich context helps the agent anticipate side effects and failure modes.

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 description is front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a structured Args/Errors list. It is compact but slightly dense in the second sentence; still every sentence earns its place, though it could be split for readability.

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?

With an output schema present and thorough annotations, the description covers all essential context: return fields, error modes, authentication requirements, and cost. No critical gaps are apparent for a single-parameter read operation.

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?

The input schema already covers the api_key parameter with 100% description coverage, including fallback mechanisms. The description adds only a minor 'read scope' note, which is already implied by the tool's read-only nature. Schema does the heavy lifting, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves the account's webhook URL and delivery status, explicitly excluding the secret. This distinguishes it from siblings like set_webhook, delete_webhook, and list_webhook_deliveries, which handle different aspects or collections.

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 use when you need the account webhook details, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_webhook_deliveries or get_hook. No when-not-to-use or alternative references are provided, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

All VHGENGINE tools Inspect

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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, e.g., signup vs. delete_account, create_key vs. revoke_key, generate_hooks vs. score_hook. Even similar tools like generate_hooks and generate_hooks_batch are clearly differentiated by single vs. batch operation.

Naming Consistency5/5

All 32 tools use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., add_credits, create_checkout, revoke_key, list_outcomes) with no mixing of camelCase or other conventions.

Tool Count4/5

32 tools is slightly above the typical 15-tool range, but the domain is broad (account, keys, webhooks, generation, scoring, jobs, outcomes), and each tool has a specific purpose. No tools seem redundant.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers most lifecycle operations: CRUD for accounts/keys/webhooks, generation/scoring with batch and async variants, outcomes reporting, and auxiliary tools. Missing explicit delete for hooks (expire automatically) and some update operations, but no critical gaps.

Resources

Need Help?