Opt a tunnel into WebSocket passthrough, so an application-level WebSocket connection (e.g. a mobile/web app's own realtime feature) can be relayed to your localhost. Pro/Team plan required to enable; pass enabled: false to disable on any plan.
| 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?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value with plan restrictions and disable behavior. It does not contradict annotations and gives practical context beyond the structured data.
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-loads the primary action, and includes only essential details (plan requirement and how to disable). There is no redundant language, making it highly concise and efficiently structured.
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 setter with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers core purpose and plan constraints but omits explanation of the subdomain parameter and any side effects or persistence details. This is adequate but not fully complete for a low-coverage schema.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains 'enabled' (with 'pass enabled: false') but fails to describe the 'subdomain' parameter, leaving a required parameter unexplained. This is a significant gap in a low-coverage situation.
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 action ('Opt a tunnel into WebSocket passthrough') and specifies the resource (a tunnel) and its purpose (relaying WebSocket connections to localhost). It effectively distinguishes from request-focused siblings by focusing on tunnel configuration, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 provides clear usage context by mentioning the plan requirement ('Pro/Team plan required to enable') and how to disable ('pass enabled: false'), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it. This is adequate guidance for when to apply the tool.
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.
