Skip to main content
Glama

test_webhook

Send a test delivery to a webhook endpoint.

Use when:

  • You want to verify a webhook URL is reachable and correctly configured before attaching it to a monitor or job.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
api_keyNoCatchAll API key. Optional if provided via x-api-key header or CATCHALL_API_KEY env var.
payloadNoOptional custom JSON object to send as the test body. If omitted, the API sends a default sample payload.
webhook_idYesThe webhook ID to test.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states 'test delivery' but does not disclose side effects (e.g., idempotency, logging, state changes). Adequate but lacks explicit safety guarantees.

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?

Two concise sentences with a bulleted use-case; no unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

Has output schema, so return values are covered. Description covers core purpose and usage, but could mention authentication (api_key parameter) and that the test event is safe/no side effects. Still reasonably complete for a simple test tool.

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 coverage is 100%; description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the three parameters. Baseline score is appropriate.

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 the tool sends a test delivery to verify webhook URL reachability and configuration, distinguishing it from sibling 'trigger_webhook' which likely triggers actual events.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly specifies when to use: before attaching a webhook to a monitor or job, implying it is not for production triggering.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count3/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.