Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

pipehero

by io.github.pipehero
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

send_test_webhook

Destructive

Send a generated test webhook to the user's localhost (the tunnel CLI must be running). Provide a provider (stripe, github, shopify, clerk, slack, resend, paddle, polar, lemonsqueezy) and optional event for a realistic sample payload, or pass a custom JSON body. Pro plan required.

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": {
      "subdomain": "<subdomain>",
      "provider": "<provider>"
    },
    "name": "send_test_webhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNoCustom JSON body (overrides the template)
eventNoProvider event type, e.g. payment_intent.succeeded for stripe or push for github. Omit for the provider's default event.
providerYesProvider whose sample payload and signature to use: stripe, github, shopify, clerk, slack, resend, paddle, polar or lemonsqueezy.
subdomainYesTunnel subdomain, from list_tunnels, e.g. myapp for https://myapp.t.pipehero.app.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / event / description
      Added value: +"Provider event type, e.g. payment_intent.succeeded for stripe or push for github. Omit for the provider's default event."
    • addedInput schema / properties / provider / description
      Added value: +"Provider whose sample payload and signature to use: stripe, github, shopify, clerk, slack, resend, paddle, polar or lemonsqueezy."
    • addedInput schema / properties / subdomain / description
      Added value: +"Tunnel subdomain, from list_tunnels, e.g. myapp for https://myapp.t.pipehero.app."
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true; the description adds genuinely new context — the external tunnel dependency and the Pro plan gate — plus the fact that payloads are template-generated with provider signatures. It does not explain why the call is considered destructive (i.e., that it delivers a real HTTP request to the user's endpoint), leaving a small gap.

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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads the action and the prerequisite, then the parameter options and the plan requirement. Efficient, though the parenthetical provider enumeration duplicates the schema's own list.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, payload generation and the plan gate, which is most of what an agent needs. It does not indicate what the call returns (delivery status, response body from the localhost endpoint), a minor gap for a tool whose outcome the agent may need to report.

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 all four parameters are already documented, and the description largely restates them (provider list, optional event, body override). Notably it never mentions the required `subdomain` parameter, so it adds little beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 (send a generated test webhook to the user's localhost) and immediately names the mechanism (tunnel CLI). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like replay_request or run_api_endpoint, which operate on saved/captured requests rather than synthetic provider payloads.

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?

Gives the two modes of use (provider + optional event for a template payload, or a custom JSON body) and the hard prerequisites: tunnel CLI running and Pro plan required. It stops short of explicitly saying when to prefer this over replay_request or run_api_endpoint.

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

All pipehero toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources