Skip to main content
Glama

create_webhook

Post every new tracker alert and saved-search hit to your https URL, signed with the secret this returns once (X-HD-Signature). Same as POST /v1/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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "create_webhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYeshttps, port 443, public host
eventsNotracker.alert, search.hit
api_keyNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does real work: it discloses that the signing secret is returned only once, names the X-HD-Signature header, and specifies which event streams will fire. Not covered: delivery retry/failure semantics, whether the endpoint is verified before activation, or how many webhooks an account may register.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the delivery behavior and the most consequential operational detail (one-time secret, signature header). Nothing is padding.

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?

The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, and the description still flags the one-time secret that an agent must capture and surface to the user. Remaining gap is failure/retry behavior and post-creation verification, which matter for a webhook registration tool.

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 67%, and the description mostly restates what the schema already documents (events list, https URL). It adds no meaning for the optional api_key parameter and gives no hint about how an empty or null events value is interpreted (all events vs none).

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 concrete verb and resource (creating a webhook that posts tracker alerts and saved-search hits to a URL), and the 'Same as POST /v1/webhooks' line anchors it to a known API operation. It does not explicitly contrast with nearby siblings such as test_webhook or create_alert, but the create+webhook framing is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The event names (tracker alerts, saved-search hits) imply the use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use framing, no mention of prerequisites (account tier, webhook limits), and no pointer to test_webhook for validating a URL before or after creation.

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