test_webhookPOST a signed test event to the webhook now.
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>"
},
"name": "test_webhook"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| webhook_id | Yes | Webhook id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose the key safety profile: non-readOnly, openWorld, non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context that the event is signed and sent immediately, but it does not explain side effects such as whether the test affects failure counts or what response to expect.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses. The action and immediacy are communicated directly.
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?
For a simple one-parameter action with annotations covering safety, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema, it does not describe the result of the test POST or any operational caveats, leaving gaps for an agent invoking it.
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%, and the only parameter is documented as "Webhook id" in the schema. The description implies targeting "the webhook" but adds no syntax, format, or selection semantics beyond the schema.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: it POSTs a signed test event to a webhook. This clearly distinguishes the action from webhook CRUD siblings like create_webhook or delete_webhook, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
The word "now" implies immediate execution, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus webhooks_get, webhooks_failures, or webhooks_update. No when-not or alternative conditions are provided.
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.