Urlbox

Update a webhook

update_webhook

DestructiveIdempotent

Change a project's webhook endpoint: its URL, the events it receives, the HTTP methods it fires on, or whether it is enabled. Pass the webhook id (from list_webhooks) and at least one field to change; fields you leave out keep their current values. Set enabled to false to pause deliveries without deleting the endpoint. Signing secrets are not changed or returned.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "intent": "<intent>",
      "webhook": "<webhook>"
    },
    "name": "update_webhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No	The new HTTPS URL that receives render notifications.
`events`	No	The events to send, replacing the current list.
`intent`	Yes	Required. In one or two sentences, what you are trying to achieve for the user with this call and why (for example: 'Screenshot the pricing page so the user can compare plans'). Recorded for analytics and audit; do not include secrets.
`enabled`	No	false pauses deliveries; true resumes them.
`firesOn`	No	Fire for renders requested with these HTTP methods, replacing the current list.
`project`	No	Project id (proj_…) or exact name. Defaults to your default project.
`webhook`	Yes	The webhook endpoint's id, from list_webhooks or create_webhook.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: partial-update semantics (omitted fields retain current values), pausing vs. deleting, and that signing secrets are neither changed nor returned. It does not explain the returned payload shape, but that is minor given no output schema.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the mutable-field list, followed by the calling contract and then the safety caveat. Every clause carries distinct information; no restatement of the title or name.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what changes, what is preserved, how to pause, and that secrets are untouched. The remaining gap is what a successful update returns, which an agent may want to confirm the new state.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: the at-least-one-field requirement (only 'intent' and 'webhook' are schema-required), replace-not-merge semantics implied by 'fields you leave out keep their current values', and the enabled/pause distinction. It does not clarify intent's audit purpose, which the schema already covers.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Change a project's webhook endpoint') and enumerates the mutable fields: URL, events, HTTP methods, enabled state. It also anchors the resource id to the sibling that produces it (list_webhooks), so an agent can place the tool precisely in the webhook family.

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?

Gives concrete call conditions: pass a webhook id from list_webhooks plus at least one field to change. It also carves out a non-obvious usage pattern ('Set enabled to false to pause deliveries without deleting the endpoint'), implicitly routing deletion to a different tool. No explicit statement of when to prefer create_webhook or delete_webhook, which keeps it short of a 5.

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

All Urlbox tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.