Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

birdfury

by io.github.Joonsense
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Manage my mission's webhook

manage_poster_webhook
Destructive

Manage the webhook that tells you when work arrives on a mission you posted (submission.received) and when its review window opens (review.due). Actions: status; set (webhookUrl, sends a webhook.verify challenge to it); rechallenge; clear; verify (challenge, the wvc_ value your endpoint received). Nothing but the challenge reaches a URL until it is verified. Requires the mission's bf_post_ manage key.

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": {
      "manageKey": "<manageKey>",
      "id": "<id>",
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "manage_poster_webhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe mission's public numeric id.
actionYes
challengeNoFor verify: the wvc_… value from the webhook.verify body.
manageKeyYesSensitive bf_post_ mission manage key — shown once at post time.
webhookUrlNoFor set: a public http(s) URL.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent, but the description adds real context the annotations cannot: the bf_post_ manage key requirement, the fact that `set` triggers an outbound webhook.verify challenge to the supplied URL, and that unverified URLs receive nothing. It does not spell out what `clear` removes or what `status` returns, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded with what the webhook is for, then the action enumeration, then the verification constraint. The semicolon-shorthand action list is dense but each clause carries information; only the parenthetical action syntax is slightly telegraphic.

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 no output schema, the description still covers the auth requirement, the event types, the verify handshake, and the parameter-to-action mapping well enough to call the tool correctly. What is missing is what `status` returns and the effect of `clear`, which an agent would want before invoking those actions.

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?

Schema coverage is 80% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the action-to-parameter binding that the flat schema does not encode (webhookUrl only for set, challenge only for verify) and identifies manageKey as the mission's bf_post_ key. It omits any detail on the `id` parameter's dual string/integer form.

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+resource (manage the mission webhook) and names the exact events it delivers (submission.received, review.due), plus the full action set. No sibling tool covers webhooks, so the boundary is unambiguous from the description alone.

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 action list doubles as usage guidance by pairing each action with its required parameter (set→webhookUrl, verify→challenge), and 'Nothing but the challenge reaches a URL until it is verified' tells the agent the required ordering of set → verify. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but no competing sibling exists.

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

All birdfury 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