Skip to main content
Glama

Cluby MCP

List webhook endpoints

list_webhook_endpoints
Read-only

The organization's webhook endpoints (name, URL, subscribed events, includes, enabled, and posConnectionId when one is a POS connection's channel). Secrets are never returned. Every event goes to every enabled endpoint subscribed to its type. Events are POSTed as JSON with an HMAC signature in X-Cluby-Signature (t=<unix>,v1=<hex hmac-sha256(secret, "<t>.<body>")>). Event types: smart_link.scanned (A member scanned a smart link or NFC tag whose target names a venue (sent to every endpoint subscribed to it; posRef only to the endpoint the tag is tied to).). Includes (optional sections added to each event's data): profile (The member's display name, profile photo URL and the date they joined the event's venue.), membershipCards (Membership / VIP cards the member holds at the venue, valid now.), benefits (Benefits the member can activate at the venue right now — a spent one, one outside its schedule, or a members-only one the member does not hold is left out (name, price text, and for the POS channel an actionId and its single-use redeemUrl).), stampCards (The member's stamp cards in the organization, with stamps and the number to fill (and for the POS channel an actionId and awardStampUrl on the cards that run at the scanned venue).), items (Items the member holds that are usable at the scanned venue — rewards earned (a full stamp card, a birthday gift) and products bought — with units left (and for the POS channel an actionId and a useUrl, good for as many uses as there are units, at most 10).).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
orgIdNoOrganization public id, the `id` field from list_orgs. Omit it when the API key reaches exactly one organization.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the 'readOnlyHint' annotation by detailing critical behavioral aspects: secrets are never returned, specific event routing logic is provided, and the exact HMAC signing structure for events is defined, offering deep insight into system behavior.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is overwhelmingly long and highly dense, reading more like a technical API specification document than a concise tool description. Its excessive length significantly hinders quick comprehension by an AI agent.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of the data handled (event types, various 'includes' sections, delivery methods), this description is extremely thorough. It provides all necessary context regarding payload structure and event distribution, making it maximally complete.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description's role in explaining the parameter `orgId` is minimal. It provides context (API key scope) rather than technical guidance beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

The title and description clearly state the purpose is to list the organization's webhook endpoints. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_webhook_endpoint by using the specific action 'list' and referencing the existing set of endpoints.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

While it does not explicitly state 'when' to use this tool versus others, its explicit function (listing existing endpoints) combined with the presence of creation and modification siblings provides sufficient usage context for an AI agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources