Cito API

create_webhook

Create a webhook on this account: Cito starts POSTing the chosen events to the URL. Needs Pro or Scale; a plan error includes the upgrade link to relay. The URL must be public. The account owner is emailed. webhook.secret comes back ONCE: have the user store it in an environment variable such as CITO_WEBHOOK_SECRET, and do not repeat it in chat. Then call test_webhook. API calls: 1.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>",
      "events": "<events>"
    },
    "name": "create_webhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	Public URL that accepts POST and answers 2xx within 10 seconds. A test inbox url works too.
`events`	Yes	Event names from list_webhook_events. Subscribe to the fewest that do the job. Example: ["cs2.match.completed"].
`filters`	No	Optional. Only events matching these are sent, for example {"league":"LEC"}. Check each event's filters in list_webhook_events: filtering on a field an event does not carry stops every delivery of it.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	true if the tool succeeded
`data`	No	Result payload when ok is true; null on error
`meta`	Yes
`error`	No
`partial`	No
`pagination`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: plan gating with an upgrade link relayed in the error, a public-URL requirement, an owner email side effect, and a one-time secret return with handling instructions (store in an env var, never echo into chat). It even quantifies cost ('API calls: 1'), which annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads the action, then prerequisites, then the critical secret-handling warning, then the next step. Every clause carries operational weight — nothing repeats the schema or the annotations verbatim.

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?

For a mutating, open-world tool with side effects, it covers the plan gate, the URL constraint, the email notification, the one-time secret handoff, and the validation follow-up. Even though an output schema exists, the secret-returned-once detail is critical context the schema alone would not surface.

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 coverage is 100%, so url, events, and filters are already fully documented in the schema itself, including the filters hazard. The description adds only the qualitative framing of 'chosen events' and 'public URL', so it meets but does not exceed the baseline for a fully documented 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a webhook on this account') plus the resulting behavior ('Cito starts POSTing the chosen events to the URL'). That framing immediately separates it from update_webhook, regenerate_webhook_secret, and the read-only list_webhooks siblings.

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?

Gives prerequisites (needs Pro or Scale) and an explicit follow-up action ('Then call test_webhook'), which routes the agent into the correct next step. It stops short of naming alternatives such as explain_webhook_setup or create_webhook_inbox, so no explicit when-not guidance.

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

All Cito API tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?