ai-agent-hub

Call webhook-echo (paid)

call_webhook_echo

Webhook debug echo — a third-party service registered on this platform, paid via x402 (flat $0.10 per call, production networks). Call without paymentHeader first to receive the price + payment requirements; retry with paymentHeader set to a signed X-PAYMENT value to get the result.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "call_webhook_echo"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	No	For POST calls: JSON body to send
`method`	No	HTTP method this service expects — check its description or try GET first	GET
`queryParams`	No	For GET calls: query-string parameters as key/value pairs
`paymentHeader`	No	Signed x402 X-PAYMENT payload (base64). Omit on first call.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the flat $0.10 per-call cost, the production-network scope, the x402 payment mechanism, and the required two-step handshake. It stops short of describing the echo response shape or any rate limits, but the payment and authorization behavior an agent must know is present.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the identity of the service before the payment mechanics. Dense parenthetical pricing detail is justified, though the sentence is long and slightly cluttered; it earns its length without filler.

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 a four-parameter paid proxy tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical unknowns: cost, payment flow, and network scope. It omits what the echo returns or how errors surface after payment, which is a minor remaining gap given the tool's debug purpose.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine semantic value beyond the schema by explaining the sequencing of paymentHeader (omit first, then supply a signed X-PAYMENT) as a protocol rather than just a field type. It leaves method/body/queryParams semantics to the schema, which already documents them fully.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Webhook debug echo') and immediately qualifies it as a third-party service registered on the platform, which distinguishes it cleanly from the other call_* utility siblings. An agent knows exactly what domain this tool operates in without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives an explicit procedural workflow: call without paymentHeader first to obtain price and payment requirements, then retry with a signed X-PAYMENT value. It does not compare against alternative sibling tools or state when-not to use it, but the when-and-how sequencing is unusually clear.

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

All ai-agent-hub tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?