Cito API

read_webhook_inbox

Read-only

What an inbox received: headers, body and whether the signature was valid. To poll, pass latestRequestId from the previous call as after. 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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "read_webhook_inbox"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The inbox id, from create_webhook_inbox or list_webhook_inboxes.
`after`	No	Only requests newer than this id.
`limit`	No	Max items to return (default 10, max 100). Example: 10.

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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it names the returned payload components and discloses the cost ('API calls: 1'), which matters for polling loops. It does not discuss rate limits or empty-inbox behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with the return shape front-loaded and the polling trick second; nothing is padded. The opening fragment 'What an inbox received' is slightly clipped, but it does not cost clarity.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no further explanation, and the description covers the one non-obvious workflow (incremental polling) plus the call cost. What remains thin is pagination exhaustion and how to distinguish this tool from delivery-log siblings, but for a 3-parameter read tool it is close to complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: the schema calls 'after' merely 'Only requests newer than this id', while the description clarifies it should be the latestRequestId carried over from the previous call. That directly disambiguates the polling parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb+resource outcome — it returns 'headers, body and whether the signature was valid' for requests an inbox received, which is more informative than the name alone. It is distinguishable from siblings like webhook_deliveries or catch_up_webhook, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

It gives concrete polling mechanics ('pass latestRequestId from the previous call as after'), which covers the most common usage pattern. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to siblings such as webhook_deliveries or catch_up_webhook, leaving that routing to the agent.

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?