status
Check the delivery status of a webhook job (queued / retrying / delivered / failed) by its job_id.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | The job_id returned by webhook_relay. |
webhook-relay
by com.agishub
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5
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.
Conciseness5/5
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.
Completeness4/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose5/5
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.
Usage Guidelines4/5
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.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one initiates a webhook delivery, the other queries its status. There is no overlap or ambiguity between send and status.
Naming Consistency4/5
Both tool names are short, simple verbs that fit the relay domain. 'status' is a noun rather than an action verb, but it clearly aligns with the query-action pattern and remains consistent in style.
Tool Count3/5
With only two tools, the server is minimal but sufficient for basic send-and-check workflows. It feels slightly thin, though the narrow scope of a webhook relay justifies the small surface.
Completeness4/5
The core lifecycle of submitting a webhook and tracking its delivery is covered. Missing features like cancellation or manual retry are notable but not essential for the server's stated purpose, so agents can still work effectively.