VHGENGINE

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

list_webhook_deliveries

Read-only

List this account's webhook deliveries, newest first. Free read (WP-HOOKS).

    Verify your receiver end-to-end (a webhook.test ping is enqueued at registration) and
    diagnose failures without waiting out a real event. Args: status (pending|retrying|
    delivered|dead|retired), limit (1-200, default 50), offset (>=0), api_key. Each row has
    {delivery_id, event_type, status, attempts, last_status_code, error, timestamps,
    next_attempt_at, payload_preview (200 chars; the full body is never returned)}. Dead
    rows are kept 7 days. Errors: unauthorized, invalid_request, rate_limited.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Max deliveries to return, 1-200. Above the ceiling is an invalid_request, never a silent truncation.
`offset`	No	Number of rows to skip for paging, 0-9223372036854775807. Page with offset += the limit you actually requested; `total` in the response is the unpaged count. The ceiling is SQLite's largest bindable integer: above it the read could only ever have been a 500, so it is a typed invalid_request instead.
`status`	No	Filter to deliveries in this state: pending (queued, not yet attempted), retrying (failed, backing off), delivered (2xx), dead (retries exhausted; redrive_webhook_delivery can requeue it), retired. Omit for all.
`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
`limit`	No	Page size actually applied.
`total`	No	Deliveries matching the filter ignoring paging.
`offset`	No	Offset this page started at.
`deliveries`	No	Each {delivery_id, event_type, status, attempts, last_status_code, error, timestamps, next_attempt_at, payload_preview (200 chars; the full body is never returned)}. `dead` rows are kept 7 days and can be redriven.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds critical behavioral details: 'Free read (WP-HOOKS)', 'payload_preview (200 chars; the full body is never returned)', 'Dead rows are kept 7 days', and a list of possible errors. These disclosures go well beyond what annotations provide and help the agent set expectations.

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 one-sentence purpose, followed by a compact paragraph of usage, args, output fields, retention, and errors. The args summary is somewhat redundant given the rich schema, but it is brief and doesn't bloat the text. Overall well-structured and efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the existing output schema, and the readOnlyHint annotation, this description covers all essential aspects: purpose, when to use, key output fields, important limitations, retention, and possible errors. Nothing critical is missing, and the presence of an output schema means the description needn't detail return values further.

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 schema description coverage is 100% and each parameter already has detailed semantics (e.g., status enum, limit bounds, offset pagination, api_key fallback). The description's 'Args:' line merely restates parameter names and basic ranges, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. 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 opens with 'List this account's webhook deliveries, newest first' — a specific verb, resource, and ordering that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_hooks and get_webhook. The scope ('this account's') and the delivery-specific focus make the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides explicit context: 'Verify your receiver end-to-end (a webhook.test ping is enqueued at registration) and diagnose failures without waiting out a real event.' This tells the agent exactly when this tool is useful. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the use case is clear enough and the sibling list reinforces differentiation.

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?