test_task_webhookSend a test webhook event (webhook.test) to verify your endpoint configuration. Uses the same authentication headers and HMAC signing as real events. Rate limited to 3 tests per 5 minutes. Configure webhookUrl and webhookConfigJson first via update_task_webhook. Requires authentication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | Yes | Your API key (m2m_...) | |
| taskId | Yes | Task ID with webhookUrl configured |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds substantial context beyond annotations: it mentions HMAC signing, rate limiting, and required authentication. While readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true provide some hints, the description enriches the agent's understanding with specific operational behavior, though it does not detail response behavior or full side effects.
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?
Four sentences, each providing distinct value: purpose, technical behavior, rate limit, and prerequisite. No redundant or filler content. The description is front-loaded with the primary purpose.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, rate limiting, and authentication details. It leaves no significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 descriptions already fully cover apiKey and taskId (100% coverage), so the description adds little new parameter-level meaning. It reinforces that taskId must reference a task with webhookUrl configured, but this is already in the schema.
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 tool sends a 'test webhook event (webhook.test)' to verify endpoint configuration, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like update_task_webhook by explicitly mentioning the prerequisite of configuring webhookUrl and webhookConfigJson via that tool.
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?
It explicitly instructs users to configure webhookUrl and webhookConfigJson first via update_task_webhook, providing a clear alternative and prerequisite. The rate limit (3 per 5 minutes) also guides when repeated testing is appropriate. This gives strong usage direction.
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, but there are overlapping pairs like fund_wallet and checkout_wallet_deposit (both create checkout URLs for wallet top-up) and cancel_physical_task vs cancel_task_with_settlement. Detailed descriptions and cross-references help, but the sheer number of similar actions creates misselection risk.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., get_*, list_*, approve_*). Minor deviations include inconsistent use of 'task' vs 'physical_task' in names and the awkward 'checkout_wallet_deposit', but overall the pattern is predictable.
54 tools is excessive for any server, even a complex platform. While each tool has a role, many are redundant or could be consolidated (e.g., wallet funding tools, multiple approval/cancel variations), making the set feel bloated and hard to navigate.
The tool set covers the full task lifecycle, escrow/direct settlement flows, wallet management, webhooks, support, and administrative functions. The only notable gap is the inability to update task details beyond location (description, deadline, etc.) after dispatch, but core workflows are well-covered.