Skip to main content
Glama

test_webhook

Verify that a webhook endpoint is properly reachable and responds correctly. Use this during setup to ensure the user's server is ready for async notifications.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "test_webhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe HTTPS webhook URL to test.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / url / description
      Previous value: -"The webhook URL to test"New value: +"The HTTPS webhook URL to test."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose that an outbound request is made to the supplied URL to check reachability and response correctness. However, it omits important traits: what request method or payload is sent, timeout behavior, whether a failure surfaces as an error or a false result, and whether the call has side effects on the target server.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the usage context. Nothing is repeated from the schema or title.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple one-parameter tool this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description should say what a successful versus failed test returns (boolean, status code, error message). That omission leaves an agent unsure how to interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents itself as 'The HTTPS webhook URL to test.' The description adds no format, protocol, or validation detail beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: verifying a webhook endpoint is reachable and responds correctly. It is unambiguous and no sibling tool covers webhook testing, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with anything, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives a clear usage window: 'during setup' to confirm the user's server is ready for async notifications. It does not state when not to use it or what to do on failure, but there is no obvious competing sibling, so the context is sufficient for correct selection.

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