Skip to main content
Glama

mcphost

by dev.mcphost
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

host.trigger.test

Dry-run an event trigger's verify config against a payload you supply, without exposing its real URL -- verifies the signature exactly as POST /hooks/... would, then runs the tool with the event as its argument. On a message trigger, runs the tool with a synthetic envelope (test: true, no messages row created). On a webhook trigger, builds and self-signs a synthetic body exactly like a real sender would, then stores and fires it through the same path POST /hook/... uses (one inbox row, one run). The run is marked test: true. A wrong signature fails signature_invalid, naming the header it checked.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe event, message or webhook trigger id.
bodyNokind="event"/"webhook": the payload to verify and run with -- any JSON value. kind="message": the synthetic envelope's body text.
dataNokind="message": the synthetic envelope's data payload.
fromNokind="message": the synthetic envelope's from address; default "@test".
headersNokind="event": header name -> string value, e.g. {"X-Hub-Signature-256": "sha256=..."}.
tenant_keyNoThe key `signup` returned. Required only when this connection carries no Authorization: Bearer header -- when both are present, the header wins.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / body / description
      Previous value: -"kind=\"event\": the payload to verify and run with -- any JSON value. kind=\"message\": the synthetic envelope's body text."New value: +"kind=\"event\"/\"webhook\": the payload to verify and run with -- any JSON value. kind=\"message\": the synthetic envelope's body text."
    • changedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Previous value: -"The event or message trigger id."New value: +"The event, message or webhook trigger id."
  2. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / body / description
      Previous value: -"The payload to verify and run with -- any JSON value."New value: +"kind=\"event\": the payload to verify and run with -- any JSON value. kind=\"message\": the synthetic envelope's body text."
    • addedInput schema / properties / data
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "kind=\"message\": the synthetic envelope's data payload."
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / from
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "kind=\"message\": the synthetic envelope's from address; default \"@test\".",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / headers / description
      Previous value: -"Header name -> string value, e.g. {\"X-Hub-Signature-256\": \"sha256=...\"}."New value: +"kind=\"event\": header name -> string value, e.g. {\"X-Hub-Signature-256\": \"sha256=...\"}."
    • changedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Previous value: -"The event trigger id."New value: +"The event or message trigger id."
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It is exceptionally transparent: it states side effects (one inbox row, one run), marks the run as test:true, explains synthetic envelope construction, notes that message triggers create no messages row, and even describes the failure mode (signature_invalid, naming the header checked). This exceeds expectations.

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 dense but not bloated. Every sentence conveys distinct, necessary information about trigger kind behavior, side effects, or failure modes. It is a single paragraph, but the complexity of the tool justifies the length. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then details variations.

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 complex tool with multiple trigger kinds and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how each trigger type is handled, what side effects occur, and failure behavior. The high schema coverage and rich description leave no gap that an agent would need to guess.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema by explaining how each parameter behaves per trigger kind (e.g., 'body' for event vs message, 'headers' for event verification, 'from' default). This enriches the schema descriptions, which are already decent but less contextual. The description goes well beyond a baseline 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Dry-run') and clearly identifies the resource (event trigger's verify config) and its behavior (verifies signature, runs the tool). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like host.trigger.fire by framing this as a test/dry-run that doesn't expose the real URL, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 provides strong context on when to use the tool (for dry-running without exposing the real URL) and explains behavior for message, event, and webhook triggers. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the dry-run intent is clear and the sibling list includes host.trigger.fire which is implied as the non-test alternative.

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

All mcphost toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources