CatchAll (by NewsCatcher)

update_webhook

Update an existing webhook's configuration.

Use when:

You want to change a webhook's URL, method, headers, or other settings.
You want to enable or disable a webhook (set is_active).
Only the fields you provide are updated; omitted fields remain unchanged.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No	Updated target URL.
`auth`	No	Updated auth object. One of: - {"type": "bearer", "token": "..."} - {"type": "api_key", "header": "X-API-Key", "value": "..."} - {"type": "basic", "username": "...", "password": "..."}
`name`	No	Updated webhook name.
`type`	No	Updated webhook type: 'generic', 'slack', 'teams', or 'custom'.
`method`	No	Updated HTTP method: one of GET, POST, PUT, PATCH, DELETE.
`params`	No	Updated dict of query string parameters.
`api_key`	No	CatchAll API key. Optional if provided via x-api-key header or CATCHALL_API_KEY env var.
`headers`	No	Updated dict of custom HTTP headers.
`is_active`	No	Set to false to disable the webhook (stop deliveries), true to re-enable it.
`webhook_id`	Yes	The webhook ID to update.
`delivery_mode`	No	Updated delivery mode: 'full' or 'per_record'.
`formatter_config`	No	Updated formatter configuration dict.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Discloses partial update ('only the fields you provide are updated; omitted fields remain unchanged'), which is key behavioral info beyond schema. No annotations provided, so description carries the burden; lacks details on error handling or permissions.

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?

Very concise: three sentences covering purpose, use cases, and behavior. Front-loaded with main action. No unnecessary words.

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?

Covers core use cases and partial update behavior. Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Could benefit from mentioning required webhook_id or potential errors, but overall sufficient for the complexity.

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 has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. Description adds little beyond listing example fields; does not explain syntax or constraints beyond what's in 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?

Description clearly states 'Update an existing webhook's configuration' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like create_webhook and delete_webhook by focusing on modification.

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?

Explicitly lists use cases (changing URL, method, headers, enabling/disabling) and notes partial update behavior. Does not explicitly mention when not to use, but context is clear.

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?