Send a test webhook event
webhookEndpoints_testSend a realistic per-source sample event to a webhook endpoint right now — a live, synchronous delivery test.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| sampleType | No |
Social Fetch
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, consistent with sending a test event. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: 'live, synchronous delivery test' discloses that it actually delivers over the network and returns immediately. This goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent anticipate side effects (e.g., the endpoint receives an event). No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with high information density. It front-loads the main action and includes key qualifiers ('per-source', 'synchronous'). No wasted words, though a structure with separate sentences for purpose and usage might improve scannability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and only two parameters, but the description omits critical context: what the response contains, how errors are reported, valid values for 'sampleType', and whether the endpoint must already exist. Given it's a testing tool, an agent needs to know what constitutes a successful test and how to interpret results—none of which is provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'id' or 'sampleType' parameters. The agent is left to infer that 'id' identifies the endpoint and 'sampleType' selects a sample, but no format, meaning, or allowed values are provided. Since coverage is zero, the description should compensate but does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sends a test webhook event to an endpoint, using a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('webhook endpoint'). It distinguishes from siblings like webhookEndpoints_create or webhookEndpoints_delete by focusing on testing/delivery. The phrase 'per-source sample event' adds specificity, though it could be more explicit about what 'per-source' means.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like webhookEndpoints_redeliver or webhookEndpoints_deliveries_list. The description implies a testing scenario but doesn't state conditions or exclusions. It lacks any mention of prerequisites (e.g., endpoint must exist) or when to prefer redelivery over a fresh test event.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
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.
Naming Consistency5/5
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.).
Tool Count2/5
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.
Completeness4/5
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.