Set or update the webhook URL for an endpoint. Returns a signing secret that must be saved. PATs are preferred and require mcp:endpoints:write or mcp:*.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The unique slug identifier for the endpoint | |
| apiKey | No | Legacy endpoint API key (x402_*) | |
| webhookUrl | Yes | HTTPS URL to receive webhook events | |
| accessToken | No | Your dashboard MCP personal access token (sgl_pat_*) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that a signing secret is returned and must be saved, and states PAT permission requirements. However, it does not describe side effects like overwriting an existing webhook or reversibility, but the 'Set or update' phrasing covers that implicitly.
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?
Three short sentences, all informative and front-loaded with the purpose. No filler or redundant content.
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?
Given four simple parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, return value, and auth. It could detail the response structure further, but the signing secret disclosure is enough for basic use.
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?
Schema descriptions cover all 4 parameters, meeting the high coverage baseline of 3. The description adds that PATs are preferred and require specific permissions, giving guidance on choosing between apiKey and accessToken. This extra context justifies a score above baseline.
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?
Clearly states 'Set or update the webhook URL for an endpoint,' which is a specific verb+resource. The phrase distinguishes it from sibling remove_webhook and other endpoint operations.
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 does not provide explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. It implies purpose via 'Set or update' but mentions no exclusions or sibling tools. Auth context is provided but that's about access, not usage scenarios.
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 pair a clear verb with a distinct resource noun, so endpoints, agents, datasets, campaigns, products, and vault operations are generally easy to separate. The main risk is the repeated request_*_payment / *_with_payment pairs and the two create_*_with_payment tools, which are only distinguishable by reading descriptions carefully.
The dominant pattern is verb_noun snake_case, such as list_my_endpoints, update_campaign, and finalize_agent_registration, and the payment/request pairs are consistently named. The vault_* tools use a namespace prefix rather than verb-first names, and vault_how_to_backup breaks the action-oriented convention, so it is not perfectly uniform.
48 tools is a very large MCP surface, well beyond the 25-tool threshold where selection becomes a serious burden. Even though the server spans multiple domains, the count feels excessive for a single agent-facing tool set and should likely be split by domain.
The core endpoint, agent, marketplace, and payment flows are well covered, including creation, updates, stats, and two-phase x402 purchases. However, there is no create_product or delete_product, campaigns lack delete, and there is no way to list previously purchased datasets, leaving notable lifecycle gaps.