Skip to main content
Glama

Kamy

by dev.kamy

Test a webhook

test_webhook

Send a real test.ping event to a registered webhook endpoint — an actual outbound HTTP POST to whatever URL the user configured, signed like a genuine delivery. Use it to prove an endpoint is reachable and that signature verification works before relying on it. Delivery is dispatched in the background, so the { message: 'Test ping dispatched' } you get back means accepted for sending, not that the endpoint answered: wait a few seconds and call list_webhooks to read lastStatus and lastDeliveryAt for the real outcome. The ping is delivered regardless of which events the endpoint subscribes to.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
webhook_idYesWebhook endpoint id (UUID) from create_webhook or list_webhooks.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that delivery is dispatched in the background, the response means accepted for sending (not delivered), and how to check the real outcome via list_webhooks. It also notes the ping is delivered regardless of subscriptions. This is rich behavioral context consistent with the 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 a bit long but every sentence carries important information: the action, the purpose, the background dispatch behavior, and the subscription note. It is front-loaded with the core action and remains efficiently structured.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a single-parameter tool with good annotations, the description fully covers the operational context: what is sent, how to interpret the response, and how to verify the outcome. It even describes the response shape despite no output schema, making it complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter webhook_id is already described in the schema as 'Webhook endpoint id (UUID) from create_webhook or list_webhooks.' The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 tool sends a real test.ping event via an outbound HTTP POST to a registered webhook endpoint, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_webhook or list_webhooks. The action is specific and the resource is well-defined.

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?

It explicitly says to use the tool to prove an endpoint is reachable and signature verification works before relying on it, providing clear when-to-use context. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use alternatives, but it does point to list_webhooks for follow-up verification, which is helpful.

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