webhooks_updateChange url, events, acks or active
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": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "webhooks_update"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 declare this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds no further behavioral context: it does not explain which fields can actually be changed, what happens to omitted fields, whether partial updates are supported, or what the response contains. It also conflicts with the schema by implying fields that cannot be supplied.
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?
The text is short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It duplicates the title verbatim and provides no actionable detail, so the sentence does not earn its place.
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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum explain that it updates an existing webhook by id and what can be changed. Instead it lists fields not present in the schema and omits the required id, leaving an agent unable to invoke it confidently.
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?
The schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter id, so the schema already defines the only accepted input. The description fails to mention id and instead refers to url, events, acks, and active, none of which appear as parameters, creating a misleading expectation about invocation.
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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as create_webhook, delete_webhook, test_webhook, webhooks_get, or webhooks_failures. The description gives no prerequisites, no conditions for updating, and no note that id is required.
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.