CatchAll (by NewsCatcher)

list_webhook_resources

List the resources mapped to a webhook.

Use when:

You want to see which jobs/monitors a webhook is attached to.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Page number for pagination (default: 1).
`api_key`	No	CatchAll API key. Optional if provided via x-api-key header or CATCHALL_API_KEY env var.
`page_size`	No	Number of results per page (default: 100, max: 1000).
`webhook_id`	Yes	The webhook ID whose resource mappings you want.
`resource_type`	No	Optional filter: 'job', 'monitor', or 'monitor_group'.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond listing resources. For a read-only list tool, it could mention that no modifications occur, but it fails to do so.

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?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences and a bullet list, front-loading the core purpose and usage context without waste.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description is adequate for a simple list tool. It could be improved by mentioning the output format or any limitations, but it is functionally complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents parameters. The tool description adds no additional semantic information beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'List the resources mapped to a webhook' and provides a specific use case, distinguishing it from sibling tools like assign_webhook_resource and remove_webhook_resource.

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?

The description includes a 'Use when' section specifying the scenario for using this tool, offering clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All CatchAll (by NewsCatcher) tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool is scoped to a specific resource type and action, with clear distinctions between similarly named operations (e.g., pull_results vs pull_job_csv, initialize_query vs validate_query). No two tools appear to perform the same function.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tools consistently use snake_case verb_noun patterns (create_X, get_X, list_X, update_X, delete_X), with domain-specific verbs like submit, pull, initialize, and validate adding semantic clarity. Minor deviations such as pull_* vs get_* and compound names like create_dataset_from_csv are still predictable.

Tool Count2/5

At 60 tools, the server is heavily overstuffed for a single MCP surface. While the broad domain (datasets, entities, jobs, monitors, projects, webhooks) justifies many operations, the sheer volume exceeds typical recommended limits and includes near-duplicates (pull_results vs pull_job_csv, get_dataset vs get_dataset_status), making agent tool selection unwieldy.

Completeness4/5

The tool set provides robust CRUD and lifecycle coverage for all major resources, including special operations like csv import, webhook mapping, and monitor enable/disable. Minor gaps such as the absence of a get_monitor (single monitor details) and no cancel_job can be worked around via list_monitors and waiting for job completion.

Resources

Need Help?