Skip to main content
Glama

create_webhook

Create a new webhook endpoint. URL must start with https://. Returns 422 if the organization has reached its webhook limit.

Tool call template

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": {
      "url": "<url>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_webhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesHTTPS URL events will be POSTed to
nameYesHuman-readable label

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool creates a resource, requires HTTPS, and can fail with a 422 error. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, whether duplicate URLs are allowed, or any rate limiting or side effects beyond the limit check.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds a key constraint and error condition. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description does not describe what the tool returns on success (e.g., the created webhook object, its ID). It only mentions one error case. For a creation tool, this leaves the agent guessing about the response structure. Sibling tools are noted but not leveraged for relative context.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters (url and name). The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, just restating the HTTPS constraint already implied by the url's description in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states 'Create a new webhook endpoint' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_webhook, delete_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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a constraint (URL must start with https://) and mentions a specific error case (422 for webhook limit), but does not guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_webhook, nor does it state prerequisites (e.g., authentication, organization membership).

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.