Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Sautikit

by io.github.SautiKit
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

desk_create_webhook

Creates a webhook endpoint for the given events. The signing secret is in this reply only.

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": {
      "url": "<url>",
      "events": "<events>"
    },
    "name": "desk_create_webhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesHTTPS endpoint that receives the events
eventsYesevent types to send (see desk_list_webhook_events)
enabledNofalse to create it switched off (default on)
purposeNoRequired on tools that read data or reports; recommended on every tool. One sentence: what you are doing and why (for example "finding this caller's open ticket to answer them"). Building a report, dashboard, analytics or an export is a SautiDesk Pro feature done by the report tools, not by pulling records.
descriptionNooptional note about the endpoint

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: the signing secret is returned only in this creation reply, which tells the agent it must capture and persist the value immediately. It stops short of 5 because it says nothing about duplicate-URL handling or whether the endpoint is live immediately.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the most operationally important fact (the one-time signing secret) is placed prominently rather than buried. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 carries the burden of describing the return value and does so by flagging the signing secret in the reply. For a five-parameter creation tool with full schema coverage and annotations, that is nearly complete; only error and duplicate-handling behavior is unaddressed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter including url, events, enabled, purpose, and description is already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Creates a webhook endpoint') plus the scoping input ('for the given events'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling create_webhook or from desk_update_webhook, which keeps it short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives such as desk_update_webhook for modifying an existing endpoint or desk_list_webhook_events for discovering valid event types. The only routing hint lives in the schema, not the description.

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

All Sautikit 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