Get one captured request in full: method, path, query, every header, and the body. Binary bodies are returned base64-encoded (up to 8KB, with a URL for the raw bytes).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | capture id from list_captures / wait_for_capture | |
| bin | Yes | bin id or slug |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations to rely on, the description carries the burden and does so well: it discloses that the full request is returned, that binary bodies are base64-encoded, that there is an 8KB limit, and that a URL is provided for raw bytes. This gives an agent accurate expectations about response format and size constraints.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a useful caveat about binary bodies. No filler or redundancy.
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?
The tool is simple: fetch one captured request by id and bin. The description covers what is returned, how binary bodies are handled, the size limit, and the raw-byte URL. Given the absence of an output schema, this is enough for an agent to call it correctly and interpret the result.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't need to add param semantics because the input schema already documents 'id' and 'bin' clearly, including where the id comes from. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, but it isn't necessary.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies a precise resource ('one captured request'), and enumerates what is included: method, path, query, headers, and body. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_captures and wait_for_capture by focusing on full retrieval of a single capture.
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?
The description clearly signals the tool is for retrieving one full capture rather than listing or waiting for captures, and the schema's id description explicitly references list_captures / wait_for_capture as the source of the id. It lacks an explicit 'use vs. alternative' statement, but the context is clear enough.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct action—create bin, read/list/wait for captures, simulate a delivery, configure a response, and verify a signature. The reading tools are differentiated by listing summaries vs. retrieving full captures vs. blocking for the next arrival, so agents should not misselect.
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern: create_bin, get_capture, list_captures, set_response, verify_signature. Multi-word targets and wait_for are still predictable and match the same imperative style.
Seven tools cover the webhook capture workflow without redundancy or bloat. Each tool serves a concrete stage in the create → capture → inspect → respond → verify loop, which is an ideal scope for an MCP server.
The core lifecycle is well covered: bins can be created, captures can be listed/read/waited for, test webhooks can be generated, responses configured, and signatures verified. Minor gaps exist around bin lifecycle management—there is no list_bins/get_bin/delete_bin or capture deletion—but auto-expiring anonymous bins make this a workable, not blocking, omission.