generate_webhook_handlerGenerates backend code to handle Payram webhook HTTP requests.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| framework | Yes | Web framework for the webhook handler code |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states that code is generated. It does not explain whether files are written, output format, side effects, or any prerequisites beyond the framework parameter. This is a significant gap for a generator 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It is brief but could be slightly expanded to include usage context without becoming verbose, so it loses one point for being too minimal.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description covers the core purpose. However, it lacks differentiation from siblings and omits behavioral context, leaving the overall completeness at a minimum viable level.
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 schema already provides a description for the parameter (framework) with an enum, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning about how the framework affects the generated code, so the baseline 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 clearly states the tool generates backend code for Payram webhook HTTP requests, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like generate_webhook_event_router by focusing on the HTTP handler, but it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many similar code-generation siblings. The description does not mention when this is appropriate or what alternatives exist, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.