Opt a tunnel into a 120-second ingress timeout instead of the 30-second default — for tool calls that legitimately run long, e.g. an MCP server exposed through the tunnel. Persists on the tunnel; pass enabled: false to revert to the 30-second default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| enabled | Yes | ||
| subdomain | Yes |
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?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses that the change 'Persists on the tunnel' and that it can be reverted by passing enabled:false. It also explains the effect (extends timeout from 30 to 120 seconds), adding meaningful behavioral context that annotations do not provide.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and includes a concrete example and revert instruction. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler 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?
For a simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, effect, persistence, and how to revert. It lacks an explicit statement about the return value, but given the simplicity and the presence of sibling context, this is a minor gap.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'enabled' parameter by noting that false reverts the timeout, and implies that 'subdomain' identifies the target tunnel. However, subdomain is not explicitly described, and the exact relationship between the parameters and the timeout change is only partially filled in.
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 uses a specific verb phrase 'Opt a tunnel into a 120-second ingress timeout' and clearly identifies the resource (tunnel) and the change (timeout increase). It distinguishes from sibling tools which all deal with requests/webhooks rather than tunnel configuration, so there is no ambiguity.
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 explicitly states when to use: 'for tool calls that legitimately run long, e.g. an MCP server exposed through the tunnel.' It also explains how to revert via 'pass enabled: false to revert to the 30-second default.' While it doesn't name alternative tools or give negative exclusions, the context is clear and actionable.
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.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: retrieving a specific request, listing requests, listing tunnels, replaying a captured webhook, sending a test webhook, and two separate configuration toggles. No semantic overlap exists, so an agent can reliably choose the right tool.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., get_request, list_tunnels, set_long_requests). The naming is uniform and predictable, making it easy to infer functionality from the name alone.
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for webhook tunnel management. Each tool addresses a clear need without redundancy or bloat, striking a good balance between functionality and simplicity.
The surface covers the core lifecycle: viewing tunnels, inspecting webhooks, replaying requests, generating test events, and configuring timeout/WebSocket behavior. Minor gaps include lack of tunnel creation/deletion or request cleanup, but these appear to be handled externally (via CLI) and do not hinder primary workflows.
