webhook-relay
Server Details
Fire-and-forget webhooks for agents with guaranteed, retried delivery and status polling. x402
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- agishub/agishub-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 0
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.1/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools, relay and status, have completely distinct purposes: one sends a webhook, the other checks its delivery status. There is no ambiguity or overlap.
Both tool names are single, clear verbs (relay, status) that directly describe their actions. The naming pattern is simple and consistent.
With only two tools, the server is minimal but covers the essential functionality of delivering webhooks and checking status. It fits a narrow scope, though additional tools for management might be expected.
The core workflow (send and check status) is covered, but missing features like canceling a job or listing recent jobs represent notable gaps for a relay service.
Available Tools
2 toolsrelayAInspect
Deliver a webhook (POST/PUT/PATCH a JSON payload to a URL) with guaranteed, retried delivery. Returns immediately with a job_id; AgisHub keeps retrying in the background until it succeeds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public http/https URL to deliver the webhook to. | |
| method | No | HTTP method (default POST). | |
| headers | No | Optional extra request headers, e.g. an auth token. | |
| payload | No | JSON body to POST to the target (object, array, string or number). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses key traits: non-blocking return with job_id, guaranteed retried delivery. However, lacks details on retry limits, failure behavior, and idempotency. With no annotations, description carries full burden but leaves gaps.
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?
Two sentences, zero wasted words, front-loaded with purpose and key behavior (retries, async). Efficient and scannable.
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?
Missing output schema means description should clarify return format; only mentions 'job_id' without structure. Also does not link to sibling 'status' for monitoring. Adequate but not complete.
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?
Schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100%). Description adds minimal value beyond schema, only contextualizing the return behavior (job_id) which is not parameter-related. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Clearly states verb (deliver), resource (webhook), and mechanism (POST/PUT/PATCH JSON payload). Distinguishes from sibling 'status' by focusing on delivery initiation.
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?
Implies usage for fire-and-forget webhook delivery with retries, but no explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with sibling 'status' (which may serve for checking completion).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
statusAInspect
Check the delivery status of a webhook job (queued / retrying / delivered / failed) by its job_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | The job_id returned by webhook_relay. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists possible statuses and states it checks delivery status. It does not disclose error handling or response format but is adequate for a simple read operation. 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence of 14 words, front-loaded with the action. No wasted words or fluff.
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?
No output schema exists; the description lists possible statuses in parentheses. It adequately conveys the tool's purpose but does not detail the response structure. For a simple tool, this is mostly complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats the parameter's source (job_id from webhook_relay) but adds no format or validation details beyond the schema.
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 explicitly states the verb (Check), resource (delivery status of a webhook job), and scope (by job_id). It distinguishes from the sibling 'relay' tool which likely triggers the job.
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 clearly implies usage after obtaining a job_id from the relay tool but does not explicitly state when-not to use or exclude alternatives. It gives clear context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!