generate_webhook_event_routerGenerates a backend event router that dispatches Payram webhook events to domain handlers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| meta | Yes | ||
| notes | No | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| snippet | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / meta / properties / language / enumPrevious value: -[
- "typescript",
- "javascript",
- "python",
- "go",
- "php",
- "java"
-]New value: +[
+ "typescript",
+ "javascript",
+ "python",
+ "go",
+ "php",
+ "java",
+ "bash"
+]Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Output schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and side-effect profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only a modest amount of behavioral context (the router dispatches events to domain handlers), without saying what artifact is produced, where it is written, or whether it overwrites existing files.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficiently sized, though it is arguably too terse to carry the routing information an agent needs.
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?
With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the low complexity of a parameterless generator keeps the bar modest. Still, the description omits which framework/language the router targets and how it differs from generate_webhook_handler, leaving a real gap for tool selection.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters and the schema coverage is reported at 100%, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless generation tool.
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 states a specific verb and resource: it 'generates a backend event router that dispatches Payram webhook events to domain handlers.' That is far more informative than the title alone. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'generate_webhook_handler', which an agent could easily confuse with it.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, despite a crowded sibling set containing generate_webhook_handler, generate_mock_webhook_event, and the many snippet generators. No prerequisites, framework constraints, or exclusion conditions are given.
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.