Relinta

Get a webhook delivery

getWebhookDelivery

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get a webhook delivery

Returns one delivery with its exact event payload and immutable chronological attempt history. Response bodies are capped and indicate when truncation occurred. Cross-endpoint and cross-workspace ids return not found.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "getWebhookDelivery"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`headers`	Yes
`httpStatus`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description goes beyond them by disclosing response-body capping with truncation indicators and the not-found behavior for cross-endpoint or cross-workspace ids. That error-semantics detail is exactly the kind of behavior an agent cannot get from annotations or an output schema.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler, front-loading the payload/attempt-history return and then the two behavioral caveats. The opening line merely restates the title, which is the only wasted text.

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 an output schema present, return values need no prose, and the description still adds the two things an output schema cannot express: truncation capping and not-found scoping. Only the absence of explicit routing to list/redeliver siblings keeps it from being fully complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Top-level schema description coverage is reported as 0%, but the nested properties do carry inline descriptions tying deliveryId to testWebhookEndpoint/listWebhookDeliveries and webhookEndpointId to createWebhookEndpoint. The description adds only the indirect hint that the two ids must belong to the same endpoint and workspace via the not-found clause, without explaining id sourcing or pairing itself.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Get a webhook delivery') and immediately clarifies that it returns a single delivery with its event payload plus attempt history, which distinguishes it from a list operation. It never names listWebhookDeliveries explicitly, so sibling differentiation is implied by 'one delivery' rather than stated.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the detail-fetch counterpart to listWebhookDeliveries and the inspection step before redeliverWebhookDelivery, but the description states no when-to-use condition, no prerequisite (e.g., obtain the id from a list call), and no exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Relinta tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?