Emailchaser

Update webhook

update_webhook

Idempotent

Updates a registered webhook's name, URL, event type or enabled state. Only the provided fields are changed. Disabling a webhook stops deliveries without deleting it. API reference: https://www.emailchaser.com/docs/api-reference/webhooks

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 numeric webhook ID (from list_webhooks)
`url`	No	New HTTPS URL to receive events
`name`	No	New display name
`type`	No	New event type
`isEnabled`	No	Enable or disable deliveries without deleting the webhook

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 29, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

First observedSep 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover idempotency and the non-destructive profile, so the description's job is to add operation semantics. It does so: partial-update behavior ('Only the provided fields are changed') and the consequence of disabling ('stops deliveries without deleting it'). It omits permission/auth requirements and any response behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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 the verb and mutable fields, followed by the two behavioral rules that matter most. Nothing is redundant; the API reference link earns its small footprint as a fallback for detail.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and annotations that already declare the safety profile, the definition covers the essential gap — partial-update and disable-without-delete semantics. It lacks any mention of prerequisites (e.g., URL/ownership verification) or error behavior, which would round it out.

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 contributes real semantics beyond the schema by stating that unspecified fields are left untouched — PATCH semantics the schema does not express. It does not add format guidance for url or type, leaving that fully to the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Updates') plus the resource ('a registered webhook's') and enumerates the mutable fields: name, URL, event type, and enabled state. That is enough to separate it from create_webhook and delete_webhook, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Only the provided fields are changed' sets clear partial-update expectations, and 'Disabling a webhook stops deliveries without deleting it' implicitly routes the agent away from delete_webhook for stopping deliveries. There are no explicit when-not-to-use conditions or named alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All Emailchaser 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?