Cito API

replay_webhook

Re-send stored events to this webhook: one eventId, or a matchId (at most 10 events, optionally one eventType). Each is marked data.replayed true with data.original_event_id, so the receiver can deduplicate. Take the ids from webhook_deliveries. 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": "replay_webhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The webhook id, from list_webhooks or create_webhook. Never invent one.
`eventId`	No	One event to re-send.
`matchId`	No	Re-send this match's events.
`eventType`	No	With matchId, only this event name.

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 cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds real behavioral context on top: a hard cap of 10 events per matchId call, the fact that each event is mutated with data.replayed=true and data.original_event_id, and a cost signal ('API calls: 1'). The side effect on the delivered payload is exactly the kind of detail an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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 dense sentences with the mode selection front-loaded and no filler; the deduplication rationale is placed right after the mutation it explains. 'API calls: 1' is terse to the point of being cryptic but carries a genuine cost signal.

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 explanation, and the description covers modes, limits, payload mutation, id sourcing, and cost. The only remaining gap is explicit routing against test_webhook and catch_up_webhook, which keeps it short of 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 the baseline is 3, but the description earns more: it documents the mutual exclusivity of eventId vs matchId, the 10-event ceiling on matchId, and that eventType is only meaningful 'with matchId'. None of those constraints appear in the schema property descriptions.

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 and resource ('Re-send stored events to this webhook') and enumerates its two operating modes (one eventId, or a matchId batch). That is enough for an agent to tell it apart from read-only siblings like webhook_deliveries, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from test_webhook or catch_up_webhook, which occupy adjacent space.

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 one concrete usage instruction — 'Take the ids from webhook_deliveries' — which tells the agent where the inputs come from. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over test_webhook or catch_up_webhook, so the choice among the replay-adjacent siblings is left to inference.

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?