generate_mock_webhook_eventGenerates a snippet to send mock Payram webhook events to your local endpoint for testing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | Payment status to simulate in the mock webhook event | |
| language | Yes | Language/tool for the mock webhook request (curl for command-line testing) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| meta | Yes | ||
| notes | No | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| snippet | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that it generates a snippet, implying no actual sending occurs, but it does not explain this distinction clearly, nor does it mention any limitations, side effects, or prerequisites. The description adds little beyond the tool's name.
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?
The description is a single sentence of 13 words, front-loaded with the key action and purpose. Every word earns its place, with no wasted content.
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?
The tool is simple with 2 fully described parameters and an output schema available, so the description does not need to explain return values. The lack of explicit sibling differentiation is a minor gap, but the core usage context is clear enough for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 clear descriptions (status enum, language enum). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Generates') and resource ('snippet to send mock Payram webhook events'), and clearly states the purpose (testing local endpoint). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_webhook_handler, which generates a handler rather than a sending snippet.
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 implies usage for testing local endpoints ('to your local endpoint for testing'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. With many sibling snippet generators, more explicit guidance would be beneficial.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.