Skip to main content
Glama

Trillboards DOOH Advertising

by io.github.snehdhruv

list_webhooks

List all webhook subscriptions for the partner account.

WHEN TO USE:

  • Viewing all configured webhooks

  • Auditing webhook subscriptions

  • Finding a webhook to update or delete

RETURNS:

  • webhooks: Array of webhook objects with:

    • webhook_id: Unique identifier

    • url: Endpoint URL

    • events: Subscribed events

    • enabled: Whether webhook is active

    • created_at: Creation timestamp

    • last_delivery: Last successful delivery time

EXAMPLE: User: "Show me all my webhooks" list_webhooks({})

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or side-effect-free, the return format is described in detail. However, it lacks information about pagination, ordering, rate limits, or authentication requirements, which would be valuable for a list operation with no annotation safety hints.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is well-organized with clear sections: summary, when-to-use, returns, and an example. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the key information is front-loaded. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this is a simple tool. The description compensates by detailing the return object fields (webhook_id, url, events, enabled, created_at, last_delivery) and providing a concrete example. It is fully complete for the scope of this tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, and the example call list_webhooks({}) confirms the empty input.

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?

The opening sentence 'List all webhook subscriptions for the partner account' clearly states the verb (List), resource (webhook subscriptions), and scope (partner account). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like create_webhook, delete_webhook, and update_webhook, which perform different actions on the same resource.

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?

A dedicated 'WHEN TO USE' section lists three concrete use cases: viewing all configured webhooks, auditing subscriptions, and finding a webhook to update or delete. This gives clear context but does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, though the suggested workflow implies you would use update/delete tools after finding the webhook.

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

All Trillboards DOOH Advertising toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

There are exact duplicates (get_task_status/tasks_get, list_tasks/tasks_list) and several overlapping analytics, attribution, and semantic search clusters (get_attention_metrics vs get_creative_attention vs get_social_attention; find_similar_moments vs semantic_search_observations; get_campaign_attribution vs get_multi_touch_attribution vs get_roas). Detailed descriptions help, but with 83 tools an agent will frequently struggle to pick the right one.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (list_devices, create_campaign, delete_webhook), but there are notable inconsistencies: list_* and get_* are used interchangeably for list operations, attention tools mix conventions (get_attention_metrics vs get_creative_attention vs get_social_attention), and the legacy tasks_get/tasks_list names break the established get_task_status/list_tasks pattern.

Tool Count1/5

83 tools is an extreme count for a single MCP server, spanning device management, sensing, campaigns, media buys, attribution, webhooks, billing, API discovery, and AdCP protocol concerns. This is a broad API surface dump rather than a focused tool set, and it would be far better split into several coherent servers.

Completeness2/5

Despite the enormous surface, core campaign lifecycle is incomplete: create_campaign explicitly tells the agent to use update_campaign to activate a campaign, but no update_campaign tool exists, and there are no list/delete campaign tools. Significant capabilities exist for analytics, attribution, and webhooks, but the primary advertising workflow has a dead end.

Resources