Sautikit

desk_list_webhook_deliveries

Read-only

A webhook's delivery history, newest first, with an optional status filter. Pages: pass next_cursor back as cursor.

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": {
      "webhook_id": "<webhook_id>",
      "purpose": "<purpose>"
    },
    "name": "desk_list_webhook_deliveries"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	page size (default and max 100)
`cursor`	No	next_cursor from the previous page
`status`	No	optional delivery status filter
`purpose`	Yes	Required 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.
`webhook_id`	Yes	webhook endpoint UUID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavior beyond them — result ordering (newest first) and the cursor-paging contract — but says nothing about what a delivery record contains, retention window, or whether failed deliveries are included by default.

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, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the one operational detail (paging) an agent must know. No filler or restated title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only list tool this is close to sufficient, but there is no output schema, so the description is the only place an agent could learn the shape of a delivery record (status values, timestamps, retry count) — and it omits that entirely.

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 the 5 parameters are already documented, and the description mostly restates what the schema says about status and cursor. It does slightly clarify the paging loop by tying next_cursor to the cursor parameter, but adds no format details (e.g. valid status values) the schema lacks.

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?

States a specific verb+resource pair (“delivery history” for a webhook) plus ordering (“newest first”) and filtering (“optional status filter”), which is enough for an agent to know it is a read-only listing. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as desk_list_webhook_events or desk_list_webhooks, so it falls 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 Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied by the resource and filter: an agent can infer “call this to inspect why a webhook failed.” There is no explicit statement of when to prefer desk_list_webhook_events vs this tool, nor any pointer to desk_retry_webhook_delivery once a failed delivery is found.

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

All Sautikit tools Inspect

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

Need Help?