Retrieve the full configuration of a specific webhook.
Use when:
You want to inspect a webhook's URL, method, headers, or status by its ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | CatchAll API key. Optional if provided via x-api-key header or CATCHALL_API_KEY env var. | |
| webhook_id | Yes | The webhook ID to retrieve. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies read-only retrieval ('Retrieve') but does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, rate limits, or error conditions. It is adequate but minimal for a straightforward query 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?
Two sentences: first states purpose, second gives usage scenario. No redundant words, front-loaded with essential information. Template guideline followed.
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?
For a simple retrieval tool with an output schema, the description provides enough context by listing what the configuration includes (URL, method, headers, status). It lacks error handling details but is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'by its ID' confirming webhook_id usage but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema for either webhook_id or api_key.
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 action 'Retrieve the full configuration of a specific webhook' and lists included fields (URL, method, headers, status). It distinctively identifies the resource and scope, differentiating from siblings like get_webhook_history or list_webhooks.
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?
Explicitly states 'Use when: - You want to inspect a webhook's URL, method, headers, or status by its ID.' This provides clear context for when to invoke but does not mention when not to use or list alternative tools.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but some pairs like create_dataset vs create_dataset_from_csv or pull_results vs pull_job_csv could cause confusion. However, descriptions clarify differences.
Tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_dataset, list_datasets) with minor exceptions like append_csv_to_dataset and pull_job_csv. Overall predictable.
60 tools is high for an MCP server, but the domain (web research, job processing, multiple resource types) justifies the count. Still borders on excessive.
The server offers full CRUD for datasets, entities, monitors, projects, webhooks, plus job submission, status polling, result retrieval (JSON/CSV), webhook management, and health endpoints. No obvious gaps.