webhookEndpoints_rotateSecretRotate the signing secret with a 24h overlap window — the old secret keeps working until it expires. The new secret is returned once.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains the 24h overlap window, that the old secret remains valid until expiry, and that the new secret is returned only once. This informs the agent of important side effects and handling requirements. Annotations only indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description details the exact behavior, enhancing transparency without contradiction.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and then provides key behavioral details. There is no fluff or redundancy. It efficiently conveys the operation and its critical side effects within a concise format.
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 description explains the behavior thoroughly (overlap window, one-time return) but omits any explanation of the required 'id' parameter. Given the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete, yet the lack of parameter clarification means an agent may not know how to invoke it correctly. It falls short of being fully self-contained.
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?
The input schema has a single 'id' parameter with no description, and the tool description does not clarify what 'id' refers to. While the tool name implies it is a webhook endpoint ID, the description never states this. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent to infer the parameter's meaning. This is a notable gap in a tool with only one parameter.
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 (rotate) and the specific resource (signing secret of a webhook endpoint). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, update, and delete by focusing on secret rotation, a unique operation. The title reinforces this, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 implies usage (rotate the secret when needed) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as webhookEndpoints_update. It lacks guidance on when to choose this over other operations, nor does it mention any preconditions like authentication. The purpose is clear, but no explicit usage context or exclusions are provided.
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.