Send a signed 'ping' event to a webhook endpoint right now and report the HTTP status it answered.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| endpoint_id | Yes | Webhook endpoint id, from list_webhook_endpoints. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | No | ||
| response_status | No | ||
| response_excerpt | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, not destructive), and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it sends a signed ping and reports the HTTP status returned. This goes beyond what the annotations alone convey, and it does not contradict them.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action, and no filler. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.
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?
For a single-parameter tool with annotations, a fully described schema, and an output schema present, the description is complete. An agent has everything needed to invoke it 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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes endpoint_id as 'Webhook endpoint id, from list_webhook_endpoints.' The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 ('send'), a specific resource ('webhook endpoint'), and precise mechanics ('signed ping event', 'report the HTTP status'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like create_webhook_endpoint, update_webhook_endpoint, and delete_webhook_endpoint.
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 purpose is clear: use this to test an existing webhook endpoint immediately. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'right now' and 'test' framing gives enough contextual guidance for an agent to route correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.