Skip to main content
Glama

list_webhook_endpoints

Read-onlyIdempotent

List the webhooks registered for this user: the URLs Reach calls when a conversation gets a new message (message.received), a company page the account administers gets one (page.message.received), the account gains a 1st-degree connection (connection.new), an account changes connection state (account.status_changed) or a daily quota is close to or at its limit (quota.threshold_reached, quota.reached). Read-only. Use to see where Reach already posts events and which events; also returns the event catalogue.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_webhook_endpoints"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endpointsNo
event_typesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the description's 'Read-only' adds little. It does add user scoping and event/event-catalogue context, but omits pagination, ordering, or whether inactive endpoints are included.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads purpose and keeps to three sentences. The long event enumeration is relevant but could have been left to the output schema, so it is slightly verbose though not wasteful.

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?

With no parameters, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description supplies enough purpose and usage context for invocation. Remaining gaps are pagination and inactive-endpoint behavior, which are secondary given the output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to add; baseline is 4. The description appropriately adds no parameter detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Starts with a specific verb and resource plus scope ('List the webhooks registered for this user'), so an agent knows it retrieves existing endpoints. It does not explicitly contrast with create_webhook_endpoint, delete_webhook_endpoint, update_webhook_endpoint, or test_webhook_endpoint, so sibling differentiation is left to the verb.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides a clear use case: see where Reach already posts events and which events, plus the event catalogue. It does not state exclusions or name sibling alternatives for adding, editing, or testing endpoints.

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.

Resources