subscribe_eventsSets the https URL that receives call.started, call.ended, and speak.completed for this seat. events chooses which of those names to receive. Omitting events receives all three. An empty webhook_url stops delivery.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| events | No | Names to receive. Omit or empty for all of them. | |
| webhook_url | No | Public https URL, or empty to stop. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior, so the safety bar is partly covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it names the concrete events received, defines the default (all three when omitted), and discloses that an empty URL stops delivery — the specific destructive act the annotation only hints at.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the parameter semantics, then the destructive edge case. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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?
With no output schema and only two optional parameters, the description covers the operation, defaults, and the stop-delivery case adequately. It omits return/confirmation behavior and auth requirements, which are minor gaps for a subscription setter.
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% and both parameters already carry descriptions (including the enum list and 'omit or empty for all'). The description's restatement of the events and the empty-URL semantics adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb (sets/subscribes) and resource (the https webhook URL per seat) and enumerates the exact event names involved. An agent can distinguish this from sibling tools like get_notification_preferences or request_speak without opening the schema.
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 clearly specifies usage semantics: omitting 'events' receives all three, and an empty webhook_url stops delivery. No alternative tool is named, but there is no close sibling competing for this operation, so the missing exclusions are minor.
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.