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). |
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.