get_webhook_deliveriesDebug webhook delivery without database access: returns the most recent delivery attempts for one of your workers, each with event type, task id, attempt number, HTTP response status, error text and timestamp. Use this when a worker is not receiving events or its webhook has been suspended.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many attempts to return. Default 20. | |
| worker_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false; the description adds behavioral context by positioning the call as a no-database-access diagnostic and specifying exactly what fields the response contains. It does not disclose retention limits or pagination traits, but those are not critical for this read-only list tool.
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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the use-case trigger. Every clause adds information and there is no filler.
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?
For a simple read-only list operation with only two parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context: what the tool returns, the fields returned, and when to use it. No critical missing information prevents an agent from calling it correctly.
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?
The schema already documents `limit` (default 20, min/max) and `worker_id`'s UUID format. The description clarifies that `worker_id` refers to 'one of your workers' but does not elaborate on either parameter beyond that, so it only partially compensates for the missing worker_id description.
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 states a specific purpose ('Debug webhook delivery') and a concrete resource ('returns the most recent delivery attempts for one of your workers') with a detailed field list. This makes it clearly distinct from siblings like get_webhook, set_webhook, or clear_webhook.
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?
Gives explicit conditions for use: 'Use this when a worker is not receiving events or its webhook has been suspended.' It lacks when-not-to-use or named alternatives, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
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.
Most tools target a distinct resource and action, but several adjacent pairs are easy to confuse: add_comment vs add_progress_note, call_executor vs call_integration, log_client_decision vs update_client_context vs memory_save, and list_context_sources vs list_integrations. The descriptions do disambiguate them, but the boundaries are subtle enough that misselection is likely with 81 tools.
The overwhelming majority follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_task, update_project, list_integrations, set_webhook), and get_/ list_/ create_/ update_ families are predictable. Minor deviations exist: memory_read/memory_save/memory_search invert to object_verb, and bare nouns like whoami, glossary, and security_posture break the pattern, but there is no chaotic casing or mixed conventions.
At 81 tools, this is far above the weight that is comfortable for an agent's tool-selection surface, especially since many tools belong to families that could be consolidated (webhooks, worker keys, project logs, context/memory). Although the domain is broad, the count will overwhelm agents and increase misrouting.
The surface is unusually comprehensive: tasks, projects, workers, leases, artifacts, comments, handoffs, webhooks, keys, context, memory, integrations, and support all have create/read/update/delete or equivalent lifecycle coverage. The gaps are minor, such as remove_dependency without a visible add_dependency and no artifact/comment deletion, but agents can work around them.