gapup-mcp

webhooks_manage

Manage HTTP webhook callbacks for async tools (T5/T6 batch flagships). Instead of polling every 5s, register a callback URL — Gapup posts the job result to your endpoint the moment it completes. Supported events: job.completed | job.failed | monitoring.alert | quota.threshold. Modes: register (add endpoint), list (view active webhooks), revoke (soft-delete), test (fire a test payload to verify your receiver), history (last 20 fires). Security: every delivery is signed with HMAC-SHA256 on the body — verify the X-Gapup-Signature header against sha256(secret, body).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No	(register) HTTPS/HTTP endpoint that will receive POST callbacks. Must return 2xx within 10s.
`mode`	Yes	register — add a webhook endpoint. list — view your active webhooks. revoke — soft-delete a webhook by webhook_id. test — fire a test payload to verify the receiver is alive. history — last 20 delivery attempts for a webhook.
`async`	No	If true, returns a job_id immediately (<200ms) instead of waiting for the result. Poll the result with job_result(job_id). Use for slow tools to avoid client timeouts.
`events`	No	(register, optional) Events to subscribe to. Defaults to all events if omitted.
`secret`	No	(register, optional) A secret string used to sign deliveries with HMAC-SHA256. Store it safely — verify X-Gapup-Signature header on your receiver.
`webhook_id`	No	(revoke / test / history) The webhook_id returned from register.
`caller_hash`	No	Optional caller identity override. If omitted, uses the internal session hash.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description provides rich behavioral details beyond annotations: it explains modes (register, list, revoke, test, history), security (HMAC-SHA256 signature verification), and event types. Annotations are readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns by showing mutable operations. No contradiction.

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 a single paragraph that efficiently covers purpose, usage, modes, events, and security. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. While somewhat dense, it earns its length with no wasted words. Could be slightly improved by breaking into sections, but still effective.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, 5 modes, security), the description is complete. It covers all modes, events, parameter usage, and security verification. The presence of an output schema (not shown) explains return values, so the description handles the rest adequately.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining each mode's parameter requirements (e.g., 'webhook_id' for revoke/test/history) and security context (secret for signing). This goes beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool manages HTTP webhook callbacks for async tools, specifying the resource (webhooks) and verbs (register, list, revoke, test, history). It distinguishes from siblings like competitive_deep_dive by focusing on webhooks.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'Instead of polling every 5s, register a callback URL'. It also lists supported events and modes. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving a minor gap.

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

All gapup-mcp tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

With 271 tools, many have overlapping purposes (e.g., multiple competitor intel tools, multiple financial modelers, multiple ESG auditors). Detailed descriptions help slightly, but the sheer volume creates confusion. Agents would struggle to select the right tool among many similar options.

Naming Consistency1/5

Tool names are wildly inconsistent: mix of English and French, snake_case and short phrases, some very generic (process, run, execute equivalents). No discernible naming convention (e.g., abm_architect vs. boundary_control vs. bp_narratif). This makes it hard to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

271 tools is far beyond typical well-scoped servers (3-15). This indicates an unfocused, over-bloated tool surface. Even for a general business intelligence server, this number is excessive and violates the principle of each tool earning its place.

Completeness2/5

Despite the large count, coverage feels scattered. Some domains (e.g., content, competitive intel) have many tools, while others (e.g., supply chain, HR) have gaps. The set lacks a coherent scope; it seems like a dump of many separate tool collections rather than a complete, curated surface.

Resources

Need Help?