rotate_webhook_secretReplace the signing secret of one webhook endpoint. The old secret stops verifying immediately, so update the receiver first. The new secret is returned once.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| endpoint_id | Yes | Endpoint id from list_webhook_endpoints. Integer or numeric string. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / endpoint_id / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "pattern": "^\\d+$",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / endpoint_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Endpoint id from list_webhook_endpoints."New value: +"Endpoint id from list_webhook_endpoints. Integer or numeric string."Input schema / properties / endpoint_id / maximumRemoved value: -9007199254740991Input schema / properties / endpoint_id / minimumRemoved value: --9007199254740991Input schema / properties / endpoint_id / typeRemoved value: -"integer"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by specifying the exact behavioral consequence: immediate invalidation of the old secret. Also discloses that the new secret is returned only once, which is critical for the caller to handle correctly.
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?
Three concise sentences with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, followed immediately by the most important timing caveat and the one-time return behavior.
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?
All essential information for a one-parameter destructive tool is present: what it does, the immediate impact, the deployment order, and the one-time output behavior. No output schema is needed because the description covers the critical return characteristic.
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 fully documents endpoint_id, including its source and accepted integer/numeric-string formats. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning because it relies on the schema's complete coverage.
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?
States a specific action ('Replace the signing secret of one webhook endpoint') with a clear resource and scope. It is easily distinguished from the sibling create/delete tools because it is about rotating an existing endpoint's 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?
Provides clear operational context by explaining that the old secret stops verifying immediately and instructing the user to update the receiver first. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the rotation action is unique enough among the siblings that this is not a significant gap.
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.