webhookEndpoints_createCreate a delivery target for monitor events. kind=http requires a public HTTPS url; kind=sink is a hosted test inbox with no url. The signing secret is returned once — store it now.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| kind | Yes | ||
| description | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description adds critical behavioral context: the signing secret is returned only once and must be stored immediately. This is beyond structured fields and informs agent action, though it doesn't describe other side effects like authentication or rate limits.
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?
Two sentences with zero fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the kind-specific rules are packed into the second sentence without redundancy.
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?
The tool is a simple creation endpoint; the description covers the key context: purpose, kind distinctions, URL requirements, and the one-time secret. Missing details like error responses or side effects are minor given no output schema and the simplicity of the operation.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates well by explaining the 'kind' enum and conditional URL requirements ('kind=http requires a public HTTPS url; kind=sink has no url'). It clarifies two of three parameters but omits any detail about the 'description' parameter, slightly reducing completeness.
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 states a specific verb ('Create') and a clear resource ('delivery target for monitor events'), and distinguishes between two kinds with specific requirements. It also differentiates from sibling CRUD operations (delete, update, list) by focusing on creation.
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 explains when to use each kind (http vs sink) and the associated URL requirements, giving clear context for selection. It does not explicitly name alternatives like update or delete, but the creation purpose is clear and the kind-specific guidance is strong.
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 is clearly scoped to a specific platform and action (e.g., facebook_post_get vs instagram_post_get). Descriptions explicitly differentiate similar tools across platforms, and within-a-platform tools like tiktok_search_videos_list vs tiktok_search_hashtag_list have clear disambiguation notes.
All 167 tools follow a strict `platform_resource_action` pattern (e.g., youtube_video_comments_list). No mixing of styles—snake_case throughout, with consistent verb ordering (get, list, search, etc.).
The server has 167 tools, which is far beyond the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. While the broad multi-platform scope justifies many tools, this extreme number makes the tool surface overwhelming and difficult for an agent to navigate efficiently.
The tool set covers a wide range of platforms and operations including profile retrieval, post/video fetching, comments, search, transcripts, and ad library access. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no Facebook events or LinkedIn messaging), but the surface is comprehensive for a read-only data aggregation use case.