create_webhook_endpointRegister an https endpoint to receive signed webhooks (event announced, fight result, card changed, event completed). The signing secret is returned ONCE — store it before the reply is discarded. At most 3 active endpoints per account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | https:// endpoint that will receive the signed POSTs. | |
| events | No | Event kinds to subscribe to; omit for all of them. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds critical behavioral context beyond the annotations: the signing secret is returned only once and must be stored before the reply is discarded, and there is a hard limit of 3 active endpoints per account. These are non-obvious side effects and constraints that the agent needs to know. No contradiction with the annotations was found.
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 three concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the one-time-secret warning and the account limit. Every sentence earns its place.
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 two-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation requirements: what the endpoint is for, the event types, the one-time secret response, and the account limit. This is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly and understand its key consequences.
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 input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage. The description restates the https requirement and lists event types, but it does not substantially extend the meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Register an https endpoint to receive signed webhooks', and enumerates the event types. This makes the tool's purpose concrete and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_webhook_endpoint, list_webhook_endpoints, and rotate_webhook_secret.
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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when the agent needs to receive webhooks for a set of events. It also provides useful context via the account-level limit of 3 active endpoints. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the purpose and constraints are clear enough.
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.