Skip to main content
Glama

Kamy

by dev.kamy

List webhooks

list_webhooks
Read-only

List the webhook endpoints registered on this account, with the id needed to test one. Each row carries url, events, enabled, and lastDeliveryAt / lastStatus from the most recent delivery — lastStatus is the HTTP code the caller's own server returned, so this is where a silently broken endpoint shows up as a 4xx or 5xx. Signing secrets are never returned here; they are shown only once, by create_webhook. Read-only and spends no quota.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses that the tool is read-only and spends no quota, aligning with annotations. It goes beyond by explaining that signing secrets are never returned and that lastStatus shows the HTTP code from the caller's server, indicating where a silently broken endpoint appears. This provides valuable behavioral context not captured 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, front-loading the main purpose. It is clear and concise, but could be slightly tighter by removing some detail about lastStatus (though that detail is useful). Still, it earns its keep without excessive verbosity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description partially describes return values (fields like id, url, events, enabled, lastDeliveryAt, lastStatus). It covers the main aspects of what the tool returns. It does not mention pagination, error cases, or the exact structure, but given the simplicity of listing all webhooks, this is adequate. A bit more on the response format would improve completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are no parameters, so the description does not need to add meaning. The schema coverage is 100%, and the description does not mention parameters, which is appropriate. Baseline 4 is justified as the description adds no parameter information, but none is needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'webhook endpoints' on the account. It specifies the purpose: to get the id needed to test one, and distinguishes from the sibling create_webhook by noting that signing secrets are not returned here. The mention of fields (url, events, enabled, lastDeliveryAt, lastStatus) adds specificity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use: to list webhooks and get ids for testing. It explicitly contrasts with create_webhook for secrets. It also states it is read-only and spends no quota, which guides safe usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use the sibling test_webhook, though it implies the id is for testing. Lacks a direct 'when not to use' statement.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Kamy toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct action or resource with minimal ambiguity. For example, `render_pdf`, `render_docx`, `render_xlsx`, and `pptx` are clearly different output formats, while `merge_pdfs`, `split_pdf`, and `edit_pdf` target different PDF operations. The signature tools (`create_signature_request`, `get_signature_request`, etc.) are also clearly separated by lifecycle stage. No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a highly consistent `verb_noun` pattern throughout, such as `create_signature_request`, `get_signature_request`, `list_signature_requests`, and `remind_signature`. This pattern is applied uniformly across all major domains (render, signature, template, webhook, trace), making the API predictable and easy for an agent to navigate.

Tool Count4/5

With 59 tools, this is a large surface area, but it is justified by the breadth of functionality: document rendering in multiple formats, e-signatures, template management, webhooks, scheduling, and a crypto/audit trail. While large, each tool has a distinct purpose, and the count feels appropriate for the scope of a comprehensive document automation API. A surface this large risks being overwhelming, but the internal organization is logical.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is remarkably complete, covering the full lifecycle for multiple domains. For e-signatures, there are tools for CRUD (requests, templates), sending (individual, bulk, envelope), monitoring (get, list), reminders, and certificates. For documents, it covers creation, conversion, editing, merging, splitting, and verification. The inclusion of utility tools like `get_started`, `validate_payload`, and the audit trail tools further solidifies this as a well-considered, production-ready API surface.

Resources