Read one webhook by id. view=webhook (default) returns the subscription; view=deliveries returns recent delivery attempts (status, retries, dead-letter) to debug why an endpoint isn't receiving events.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| view | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by explaining what each view returns: the subscription or delivery attempts with status, retries, and dead-letter details. This goes beyond the safety signals in annotations.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by view-specific details. Every word contributes; there is no extraneous information or redundancy.
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 simple 2-parameter read-only tool, the description is complete: it covers both parameters, the default behavior, and the purpose of the alternative view. Even without an output schema, it gives sufficient return-value context for the agent to select and invoke the tool 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?
The schema provides no descriptions for id or view, so the description carries that burden. It fully explains the view enum values, including the default ('webhook') and what each returns. The id parameter is self-explanatory from 'by id' in the description.
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 starts with 'Read one webhook by id,' clearly specifying the action (read) and the resource (webhook by id). It distinguishes from list-oriented tools like relm_list_webhooks by emphasizing 'one' and explaining the view parameter's role.
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?
It provides a concrete use case: 'view=deliveries ... to debug why an endpoint isn't receiving events.' While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the scoped read-by-id nature and debugging scenario guide the agent on when to use this tool versus broader list or management tools.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct resource-action pair (e.g., create_automation, create_pipeline, create_template), and potential overlaps like batch vs create or log_activity vs create are clearly differentiated in descriptions. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
All 41 tools follow the relm_<verb>_<noun> pattern in snake_case, with conventional verbs like create, get, list, delete, manage, and restore. Minor plural/singular differences (list_automations vs get_automation) follow standard resource-naming practices and do not break consistency.
At 41 tools, the set is far beyond the 25+ threshold and feels heavy for an agent to navigate. While the CRM domain is broad, many tools could be consolidated (e.g., generic get/list by resource type) without losing clarity.
The tool set covers the full record lifecycle (CRUD, restore, batch, search) plus schema management, pipelines, stages, automations, sequences, templates, webhooks, channels, and usage. However, automations, sequences, and templates lack update operations—requiring delete-and-recreate workarounds—which is a minor but notable gap.
