Proof Holdings

retry_webhook_delivery

Retry a failed webhook delivery. Creates a new delivery attempt with the same payload to the configured endpoint.

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

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Webhook delivery ID to retry

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`message`	Yes
`success`	Yes
`delivery_id`	Yes	MongoDB ObjectId
`next_retry_at`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 2, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "delivery_id": {
+      "description": "MongoDB ObjectId",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "next_retry_at": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "success": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "success",
+    "message",
+    "delivery_id",
+    "next_retry_at"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 26, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
First observedSep 19, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare mutating-but-not-destructive behavior, and the description usefully confirms that a retry spawns a NEW attempt carrying the same payload rather than mutating the original. It also discloses the Proof-account/authentication requirement and the caveat that start_login does not open this tool, though it omits rate limits and behavior when the endpoint is disabled.

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 core behavior is front-loaded in one sentence, with access prerequisites separated into their own block. The ACCESS note is somewhat verbose boilerplate, but nothing is redundant with the core description.

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 one required parameter, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs plus the auth gate. It leaves minor gaps around endpoint-state edge cases and what the retry returns, but the output schema covers return values.

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?

The single parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Webhook delivery ID to retry') at 100% coverage, and the description adds nothing beyond noting the delivery must be a failed one. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb (retry) and resource (webhook delivery) plus the precise effect: a new delivery attempt with the same payload to the configured endpoint. This clearly separates it from siblings such as get_webhook_delivery, list_webhook_deliveries, and create_webhook_endpoint.

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 precondition 'failed webhook delivery' implies when to use it, but there is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., don't retry a pending delivery) and no named alternative such as inspecting via get_webhook_delivery first. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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

All Proof Holdings tools Inspect

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.