neuron

Create Outbound Webhook

neuron_create_outbound_webhook

Register a new outbound webhook that sends HTTP POST requests to an external URL when specified bot events occur. Supported events: message.created, message.assistant, conversation.created, conversation.escalated, conversation.closed, bot.paused, bot.resumed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	Destination URL that will receive webhook event payloads (HTTPS recommended)
`name`	Yes	Human-readable name for the outbound webhook
`botId`	Yes	Unique identifier (UUID) of the bot to create the outbound webhook for
`eventTypes`	Yes	Array of event types that should trigger this webhook
`filterPrompt`	No	Optional LLM prompt to selectively filter which events are forwarded (e.g., 'only forward escalations about billing')

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds that it sends HTTP POST requests and lists event types, but does not cover idempotency, retry behavior, or error handling. Provides some value beyond annotations but significant gaps remain.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. No filler words. Each sentence adds value.

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

Completeness2/5

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

No output schema, and the description does not mention return value (e.g., webhook ID, status). Also missing details about webhook verification, activation, or delivery guarantees. For a 5-parameter creation tool, this is incomplete.

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?

All 5 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description reiterates the supported events already present in the schema enum but adds no new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already carries the burden.

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?

The description clearly states the tool creates an outbound webhook that sends HTTP POST requests for specified bot events. It lists supported event types, distinguishing it from related tools like neuron_create_webhook (likely inbound) and neuron_update_outbound_webhook.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., neuron_create_webhook, neuron_update_outbound_webhook). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions are mentioned.

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

All neuron tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most tools are clearly separated by resource type, but there is meaningful overlap in messaging entry points (send_message, send_whatsapp, compose_message, bot_api_send) and contact ingestion/sync tools (import_contacts, populate_contacts, sync_whatsapp_contacts). The descriptions help disambiguate, but with 309 tools an agent will frequently need to read closely to pick the right one.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overwhelming majority of tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: create_*, get_*, list_*, update_*, delete_*. Minor deviations like sales_stats, lead_stats, wallet_balance, and whoami break the pattern slightly, but overall naming is highly predictable.

Tool Count1/5

309 tools is an extreme count for any MCP server, even a broad platform. This creates significant cognitive load and navigation overhead for agents, and far exceeds the well-scoped 3-15 tool range where coherence is strongest.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is remarkably comprehensive across bots, contacts, campaigns, flows, knowledge bases, personas, marketplace, wallet, and products. Minor gaps exist — lead sources lack update/delete tools, and there is no single get_task or get_webhook alongside their list/update/delete counterparts — but these are workable gaps rather than dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?