Skip to main content
Glama

Gumlet MCP

by com.gumlet.mcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

update_webhook

Update a webhook listener.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoURL from the application you want to send data to.
sourcesNoList of video collection identifiers for which webhooks are needed to be invoked.
triggersNoEvents that invoke this webhook. `status` subscribes to every video asset status event. `live-video-status` subscribes to every live video status event. Any other value subscribes to that event only.
webhook_idYesUnique identifier for the Gumlet Webhook which needs to be updated.
secret_tokenNoSecret sent back in the `x-gumlet-token` header of each webhook POST so you can confirm the request came from Gumlet.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / sources / items
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / sources / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +"array"
  2. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / secret_token / description
      Previous value: -"Authentication token to ensure legitimacy of Gumlet Webhook request on your application."New value: +"Secret sent back in the `x-gumlet-token` header of each webhook POST so you can confirm the request came from Gumlet."
    • changedInput schema / properties / triggers / description
      Previous value: -"Triggers for the invocation of webhookos, supported option is `status`."New value: +"Events that invoke this webhook. `status` subscribes to every video asset status event. `live-video-status` subscribes to every live video status event. Any other value subscribes to that event only."
    • addedInput schema / properties / triggers / items
      Added value: +{
+  "enum": [
+    "status",
+    "live-video-status",
+    "video.status.created",
+    "video.status.downloaded",
+    "video.status.optimized",
+    "video.status.ready",
+    "video.status.errored",
+    "video.status.deleted",
+    "video.status.repackaged",
+    "video.status.stream_ready",
+    "live.video.status.created",
+    "live.video.status.ready",
+    "live.video.status.preparing",
+    "live.video.status.connected",
+    "live.video.status.active",
+    "live.video.status.complete",
+    "live.video.status.disconnected",
+    "event.embed.viewed",
+    "event.embed.cta_clicked",
+    "event.video.updated",
+    "event.video.uploaded",
+    "event.playlist.created",
+    "event.playlist.asset",
+    "event.playlist.deleted",
+    "event.video.analytics",
+    "event.image.analytics",
+    "event.embed.form_submitted",
+    "event.comment.all",
+    "event.channel.member_joined"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / triggers / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +"array"
  3. First observed

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing behavioral, e.g. whether the update is partial or full, what happens to omitted fields, or whether the secret_token is rotated. With annotations present, no credit is earned for merely restating the operation.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single short sentence, so it is not padded or verbose. However, it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise: it adds no information the tool name and schema don't already convey.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Rich structured data (100% schema coverage, output schema, annotations) carries much of the load, so the description needn't explain return values. But for a non-idempotent mutation with 5 parameters and only 1 required, the description says nothing about update semantics, partial-vs-full behavior, or side effects, leaving a real gap.

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 the baseline is 3. The schema fully documents url, sources, triggers, webhook_id, and secret_token; the description adds no additional format or semantic detail beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Update a webhook listener" states the verb (update) and resource (webhook), but it essentially restates the tool name without adding scope or distinguishing it from create_webhook, delete_webhook, or list_webhooks. An agent gets the basic idea but no differentiation from siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as create_webhook or delete_webhook. The agent must infer entirely from the name that this is the modification path.

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

All Gumlet MCP toolsInspect
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