Create a new webhook endpoint. URL must start with https://. Returns 422 if the organization has reached its webhook limit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | HTTPS URL events will be POSTed to | |
| name | Yes | Human-readable label |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the URL validation rule and the 422 error on webhook limit, but it does not describe the success response, any permissions needed, or what events will be POSTed (though the schema partially covers the latter). This is adequate but lacks depth.
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 description is two sentences: first establishes the core purpose, second covers a constraint and an error scenario. There is no fluff, and all sentences earn their 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 simple 2-parameter create tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: what it does, the URL constraint, and a specific error condition. It doesn't mention the success return value, but given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap.
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 already provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for both 'url' and 'name'. The description adds the 'URL must start with https://' constraint, which slightly reinforces the schema's 'HTTPS URL' but doesn't add significant new meaning. Baseline 3 applies.
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 clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('a new webhook endpoint'), using a specific verb+resource structure. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like delete_webhook, update_webhook, and test_webhook by focusing on creation.
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 description implies when to use this tool: to create a new webhook endpoint, with the explicit URL requirement and a note about the 422 limit condition. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the sibling tool names make the usage context clear.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (domain management, report retrieval, forensic reports, alerts, webhooks). The only potential confusion is between get_forensic_reports_summary and get_forensic_reports_statistics, which both aggregate forensic data but differ in scope and grouping.
Tool names consistently follow a verb_noun pattern (list_domains, create_webhook, delete_domain) with snake_case throughout. Minor deviations include singular/plural mix (get_forensic_report vs get_forensic_reports_statistics) and synonymous verbs (check_dmarc vs verify_domain), but overall the pattern is predictable.
With 21 tools, the set is on the heavier side for a DMARC monitoring server. While the multiple sub-domains (domains, reports, forensics, alerts, webhooks) justify many tools, some could potentially be consolidated (e.g., summary vs statistics variants), making the count feel slightly bloated.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of each resource: domains have create/list/get/delete/verify, webhooks have full CRUD plus test, reports have list/get/export/statistics, forensic reports have list/get/summary/statistics, and alerts have list/dismiss. No obvious gaps or dead ends for DMARC monitoring workflows.
