Create a webhook endpoint (paid plans) receiving signed message.received and domain.verified events. The signing secret is in this response ONLY. Message bodies are never delivered over webhooks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | HTTPS endpoint to receive signed message.received / domain.verified events. | |
| description | No | Optional description shown in listings. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, but the description discloses critical behavioral traits: the signing secret is only shown in the response, and message bodies are never delivered over webhooks. This is valuable transparency.
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?
Two concise sentences, each adding essential information: purpose and behavioral constraint. No wasted words.
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?
Given the tool has only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and key behavioral constraints. Could mention HTTPS requirement explicitly, but it's in the parameter description.
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% (both parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds context about the events and plans but does not significantly enhance understanding of the parameters beyond what the schema provides.
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 clearly states the tool creates a webhook endpoint for specific events (message.received and domain.verified) and includes the constraint that it's for paid plans. It distinguishes from sibling tools like test_webhook, delete_webhook, etc.
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?
The description mentions the tool is for paid plans and specifies the events it handles, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.