Cito API

update_webhook

Change a webhook's URL, events, filters or on/off state. Changing the URL emails the account owner. Send only what changes. 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": "update_webhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The webhook id, from list_webhooks or create_webhook. Never invent one.
`url`	No	New public URL.
`events`	No	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. Send null to clear them.
`isActive`	No	false pauses the webhook; true turns it back on and clears its failures.

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

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world mutation, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: changing the URL emails the account owner (a side effect not visible in annotations) and it reports an API-call cost of 1, which matters for budgeting.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what can be changed, then the consequence of a URL change, then the partial-update rule. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 side-effect disclosure plus API-call count covers most of what an agent needs. The one remaining ambiguity is whether passing events replaces the whole subscription list or merges, which is not stated.

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 every parameter already carries guidance (id provenance, event names from list_webhook_events, filter pitfalls, isActive clearing failures). The description's field list only restates the schema and adds no format or merge-vs-replace detail for the events array.

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?

"Change a webhook's URL, events, filters or on/off state" gives a specific verb plus the exact set of mutable resources, which separates it cleanly from create_webhook, delete_webhook and list_webhooks in the sibling set. An agent can pick this tool without opening the schema.

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?

"Send only what changes" is a useful invocation rule that implies partial-update semantics, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., delete_webhook for removal, test_webhook for validation). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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?