Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Proof Holdings

by holdings.proof
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

get_webhook_stats

Read-only

Get webhook delivery statistics including total deliveries, success/failure counts, and recent activity.

ACCESS: needs a Proof account. Authenticate this client (Claude Code: /mcp → Authenticate), then call this tool again. start_login does NOT open this tool.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_webhook_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
totalYes
by_statusYes
delivery_rateYesDelivered share of all deliveries, a percentage with one decimal and a `%` sign; `0%` when there are none
recent_failures_24hYesFailed deliveries last updated in the past 24 hours

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "description": "Webhook delivery statistics",
+  "properties": {
+    "by_status": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "properties": {
+        "delivered": {
+          "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+          "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "failed": {
+          "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+          "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "pending": {
+          "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+          "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+          "type": "integer"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "pending",
+        "delivered",
+        "failed"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "delivery_rate": {
+      "description": "Delivered share of all deliveries, a percentage with one decimal and a `%` sign; `0%` when there are none",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "recent_failures_24h": {
+      "description": "Failed deliveries last updated in the past 24 hours",
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "total": {
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+      "type": "integer"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "total",
+    "by_status",
+    "delivery_rate",
+    "recent_failures_24h"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: an authentication precondition and an explicit warning that start_login is not the correct unlock path. It does not describe the time window or freshness of the aggregate statistics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the access requirement. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 an output schema covering return values, zero params, and readOnlyHint present, the description covers the essentials and adds the auth requirement. Only the scope of the aggregation (time range / what 'recent' means) is left unspecified.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is effectively empty, so there is nothing to disambiguate — baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb (get) and resource (webhook delivery statistics) and enumerates the content returned: total deliveries, success/failure counts, recent activity. It implicitly separates itself from list_webhook_deliveries/get_webhook_delivery by being an aggregate, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The second paragraph gives real operational guidance — it requires a Proof account and instructs the agent to authenticate and retry, and warns that start_login does not unlock this tool. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over list_webhook_deliveries or get_webhook_delivery for per-delivery inspection.

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

All Proof Holdings 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