Your webhooks with their events and state (never the secret). Same as GET /v1/webhooks.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_webhooks"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful trait: secrets are never returned. It says nothing about pagination, ordering, empty-result behavior, or the fact that an api_key may be needed for authentication, leaving real gaps for an unannotated tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short sentence plus a REST reference, front-loading the resource and the key caveat (no secret). Nothing is padded, though the telegraphic phrasing sacrifices a little clarity for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return-value structure need not be described, and the one parameter is a self-evident credential. Still, for an unannotated tool the description leaves auth requirements and listing behavior (pagination, ordering) unaddressed, making it only minimally sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter (api_key, optional, default null) has 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only place it could be explained, yet it is never mentioned. Low coverage means the description should compensate, and here it adds nothing about credentials or scoping.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Effectively states a list operation over the caller's webhooks, including what each entry carries (events and state, minus the secret), so it is clearly distinct from create_webhook, delete_webhook, test_webhook and webhook_deliveries. The verb is implied by the possessive phrasing rather than stated, which keeps it just 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no statement of when to reach for this versus find_hooks, get_hook, or webhook_deliveries. The only context offered is a REST equivalence ('Same as GET /v1/webhooks'), which describes shape rather than selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.