Fetch the requests captured by a webhook created with webhook_endpoint_create. Returns the newest requests first with method, headers, query params, body payload, and timestamps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Webhook id returned by webhook_endpoint_create | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of requests to return (1-100, default: 20) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| requests | No | ||
| expires_at | No | ||
| request_count | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "id": "<id returned by webhook_endpoint_create>"
+ }
+]Output schema / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "expires_at": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "request_count": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "requests": {
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds useful behavior beyond that: newest-first ordering and the returned fields (method, headers, query params, body, timestamps). It does not cover retention/expiry or empty-result behavior, but adds real context over the annotations.
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 tightly written sentences with no waste, and the resource definition plus the creation prerequisite are front-loaded before the return-shape detail.
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?
With an output schema present and 100% param coverage, the description only needs to orient the agent, which it does. Minor gaps like retention window or behavior when no requests are captured keep it from a 5.
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 description coverage is 100%, with both id and limit fully documented including the 1-100/default 20 bounds, so the description need not carry parameter meaning. The description adds nothing beyond the schema for parameters, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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?
Specific verb ('Fetch') plus a precise resource ('requests captured by a webhook'), and it anchors the resource to the sibling that creates it (webhook_endpoint_create). An agent can distinguish this from webhook_endpoint_create immediately.
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?
Implies usage by stating the id must come from webhook_endpoint_create, which tells the agent the prerequisite ordering. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not or alternative tools, so the guidance is only implied.
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.