Create a webhook push subscription
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": {
"webhookUrl": "<webhookUrl>",
"events": "<events>"
},
"name": "createPushSubscription"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| events | Yes | ||
| webhookUrl | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a mutation via 'create' and hints at HTTP callback delivery via 'webhook', but says nothing about permissions, duplicate handling, validation of the webhook URL, what event names are accepted, or what happens on delivery failure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single short sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and contains no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined compression.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two fully undocumented required parameters, the description is not complete enough to call the tool correctly. It should at least explain the events parameter and any creation preconditions given that no structured field carries that information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for two required parameters. 'webhook' loosely implies the webhookUrl's purpose, but the description never explains the 'events' array — the format of accepted event names, whether they are free-form strings or a fixed set, or whether it must be non-empty — leaving half the inputs undocumented in both schema and description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('Create a webhook push subscription'), and 'webhook' plus 'subscription' clearly separates it from siblings like deletePushSubscription, togglePushSubscription and listPushSubscriptions. It stops short of differentiating from createProject or the other create* tools, but the resource noun does that work implicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to create versus toggle or delete a subscription, no preconditions (e.g. whether a subscription for the same webhookUrl may already exist), and no mention of any alternative sibling. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.