Update app name / webhook_url (https) / webhook_events opt-in list. Needs the 'webhooks' scope (the connect-issued token has it) or the primary token. See the webhooks doc for the event types and signature verification.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | New app name (1-64). | |
| webhook_url | No | https URL for webhook delivery; "" clears it. | |
| webhook_events | No | Extended event types to opt into (invoice_paid is always delivered); [] = invoice_paid-only. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds meaningful context by specifying the required auth scope/token and directing the agent to the webhooks doc for event types and signature verification.
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?
Two tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and target fields; the second provides auth and documentation pointers efficiently.
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, fully-optional 3-parameter update tool, the description plus schema covers the essentials: accepted fields, auth requirements, clearing behavior, and a pointer to the webhooks doc. It does not explicitly state partial-update semantics or the return value, but those are minor given no output schema and full param schema coverage.
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%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters. The description mostly restates what the schema says ('https', 'opt-in list') without adding meaningfully new parameter-level details, keeping it at the baseline.
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?
Description states a specific action ('Update') on a clear resource (app) and names exactly which fields are affected: name, webhook_url, and webhook_events. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does and sets it apart from the payment/subscription-focused sibling tools.
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 description gives explicit prerequisites: the 'webhooks' scope on the connect-issued token, or the primary token. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the auth guidance is clear enough for an agent to know when it is permitted to call this tool.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: invoices, subscription plans, subscriptions, checks, transfers, connection status, and app info are cleanly separated. Even similarly named tools like transfer and transferBatch are clearly distinguished by single vs. batch behavior.
The overwhelming majority follow a clear camelCase verb_noun pattern, such as createInvoice, getChecks, and refundInvoice. Minor deviations exist with get_docs and connect_status using snake_case, and bare verbs like connect and transfer, but these do not seriously harm predictability.
At 24 tools, the set is slightly above the ideal compact range, but the scope is genuinely broad: connection onboarding, invoices, subscriptions, checks, transfers, balances, rates, app settings, and documentation. Most tools cover distinct needed operations for a merchant payments API.
The core lifecycles are well covered: create/list/delete/refund for invoices, create/list/archive for subscription plans, create/list/delete for checks, and single/batch transfers with listings. The main gap is a lack of singular get-by-id endpoints for individual resources, though list endpoints likely make this workable.