Enable or disable a webhook.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| active | Yes | Set true to activate or false to deactivate | |
| confirm | No | Must be true to make the change. Leave it out first to get a preview, show it to the user, and ask them to confirm | |
| dry_run | No | Show what would change without changing anything | |
| webhook_id | Yes | Webhook ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / active / descriptionPrevious value: -"Set true to activate or false to deactivate,required"New value: +"Set true to activate or false to deactivate"Input schema / properties / confirmAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Must be true to make the change. Leave it out first to get a preview, show it to the user, and ask them to confirm",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Input schema / properties / webhook_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Webhook ID,required"New value: +"Webhook ID"Input schema / properties / api_keyRemoved value: -{
- "description": "MailerCloud API key",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / dry_runAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Show what would change without changing anything",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations: it does not mention the destructive effect, confirmation requirement, dry_run behavior, or preview workflow.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted wording, but it is too terse for a destructive toggle operation that requires preview and confirmation. It is concise but not appropriately structured for the workflow.
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?
The rich schema and annotations cover the key safety and confirmation mechanics, so the description is not dangerously incomplete. However, it omits sibling differentiation and does not surface the preview-then-confirm workflow that is central to correct use.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents webhook_id, active, confirm, and dry_run. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which makes the baseline 3 appropriate.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Enable or disable a webhook.' It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate it from siblings such as update_webhook, test_webhook, or delete_webhook.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention update_webhook, test_webhook, or delete_webhook, nor does it explain the preview-then-confirm workflow implied by the annotations and parameters.
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.