Cito API

send_inbox_sample

Put a real sample of an event into a test inbox, signed with the inbox secret and marked as a test. Any plan, any event; below Pro the sample is at least 2 hours old. Up to 30 an hour. 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>",
      "event": "<event>"
    },
    "name": "send_inbox_sample"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	The inbox id, from create_webhook_inbox or list_webhook_inboxes.
`event`	Yes	Event name from list_webhook_events.

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?

Beyond the supplied annotations, the description discloses that the sample is signed with the inbox secret, flagged as a test, rate limited to 30 per hour, gated by plan tier, and costs 1 API call. That is substantive operational context that annotations cannot express. It does not say whether the sample persists in the inbox or appears in webhook_deliveries, which would complete the picture.

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?

Four short clauses, front-loaded with the action and followed by constraints and cost. There is no filler and every sentence carries distinct information.

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 cost, rate limits, plan gating, and signing behavior. The only gap is positioning relative to the other delivery-testing siblings, which matters given how many similar webhook tools exist.

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% and both parameters already document their sources (create_webhook_inbox / list_webhook_inboxes and list_webhook_events). The phrase 'any event' loosely confirms the event parameter is unrestricted, but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Put a real sample of an event into a test inbox,' which is concrete and distinguishes the action from reading or clearing an inbox. It stops short of naming adjacent siblings such as test_webhook or replay_webhook, so an agent must infer the boundary from the word 'inbox' alone.

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?

'Any plan, any event' and the note that below Pro the sample is at least 2 hours old give real preconditions for use. However there is no explicit when-to-use versus test_webhook, replay_webhook, or catch_up_webhook_inbox, leaving the agent to guess which delivery-simulation tool is appropriate.

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?