neuron

Update Outbound Webhook

neuron_update_outbound_webhook

Idempotent

Modify an existing outbound webhook's configuration, including its destination URL, subscribed event types, or filter prompt.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Unique identifier (UUID) of the outbound webhook to update
`url`	No	Updated destination URL that will receive webhook event payloads (HTTPS recommended)
`name`	No	Updated human-readable name for the webhook
`eventTypes`	No	Updated array of event types that should trigger this webhook
`filterPrompt`	No	Updated LLM prompt for selectively filtering forwarded events

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) declare key behaviors, but the description adds little beyond listing modifiable fields. It does not disclose update semantics (e.g., whether partial updates are supported, if URL validation occurs, or impacts on active subscriptions). With annotations carrying the main burden, the description offers minimal extra transparency.

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?

The description is a single 15-word sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key configurable aspects. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no redundant 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?

For an update tool with a well-documented schema and annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it omits nuance about update behavior (e.g., idempotency, partial vs full update), which would be helpful for agents. The lack of output schema implies no complex return value to describe, keeping completeness high.

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 input schema already documents all parameters and their meanings. The description only paraphrases the schema items (URL, event types, filter prompt) without adding new detail or usage context, meeting the baseline for complete schema coverage.

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 verb 'Modify' or 'update' and identifies the resource as an existing outbound webhook. It lists the configurable fields (URL, event types, filter prompt), which distinguishes it from creating or deleting a webhook.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_outbound_webhook or delete_outbound_webhook. Usage is implied (when an existing webhook needs modification), but no exclusions or context for decision-making are provided.

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?