Admin Substitute

webhooks.subscribe

Register a webhook URL to receive real-time event notifications. Events are POST-ed as JSON with HMAC-SHA256 signature in X-Webhook-Signature header. Available events: lead_created, lead_updated, quote_created, quote_accepted, job_created, job_completed, invoice_sent, payment_received.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	HTTPS URL to receive webhook POST requests. Required.
`name`	Yes	Human-readable name for this webhook (e.g. "My Agent Listener"). Required.
`events`	Yes	Array of event types to subscribe to. Required.
`headers`	No	Optional custom headers to include in webhook requests.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Webhook subscription ID
`events`	No	Subscribed event types
`secret`	No	HMAC-SHA256 signing secret. Store this — use it to verify webhook payloads.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and unknown side effects (openWorldHint=true). The description adds key behavioral details: POST events as JSON with HMAC-SHA256 signature, informing agents of security and format. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by crucial behavioral detail. No redundant phrases, every sentence earns its 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?

Given complexity (4 params, nested objects, output schema exists), the description covers event types and webhook format. It does not explain output schema, but that is provided separately. Sufficient for effective tool use.

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 describes all parameters (100% coverage). The description lists events but does not add meaning beyond the schema enum. Parameter semantics are adequate but not enhanced.

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 registers a webhook URL for real-time event notifications, with specific verb and resource. It lists available events, distinguishing it from siblings like 'webhooks.list' and 'webhooks.unsubscribe'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., webhooks.list, webhooks.unsubscribe). The description implies usage for subscribing to events, but lacks conditions or prerequisites.

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

All Admin Substitute 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

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct resource+action naming (e.g., leads.create, jobs.list), but some overlap exists in analytics tools (dashboard, detailed, financials) and workflow automations (process_lead vs google_ads_pipeline). Descriptions clarify purposes, so slight confusion is possible but limited.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent `domain.action` pattern (e.g., leads.create, billing.status). No mixing of camelCase or snake_case. Even complex names like lifecycle.assess or scaling.readiness_score adhere to the convention.

Tool Count1/5

95 tools is far beyond typical well-scoped servers (3-15). While the server aims to cover an entire business management platform, this volume is overwhelming for an agent, making selection and memory difficult.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is exceptionally comprehensive, covering formation, hiring, compliance, funding, leads, quotes, jobs, invoicing, payments, marketing, analytics, integrations, webhooks, workflows, and more. Almost no obvious gaps in the lifecycle of running a trade business.

Resources

Need Help?