Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

apibase

by io.github.whiteknightonhorse
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

List webhook endpoints

shop.merchant.webhook_list
Read-only

Your webhook endpoints (needs webhooks:write), deleted ones excluded, signing secrets never returned: endpoint_id, url, events, status, failures_in_row, created_at, partner. A partner grant key sees only the endpoints it created.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "shop.merchant.webhook_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endpointsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / endpoints / items / properties / partner
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Partner whose grant created the endpoint; null = your own.",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
    • changedOutput schema / properties / endpoints / items / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "endpoint_id",
-  "url",
-  "events",
-  "status",
-  "failures_in_row",
-  "created_at"
-]New value: +[
+  "endpoint_id",
+  "url",
+  "events",
+  "status",
+  "failures_in_row",
+  "created_at",
+  "partner"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, it discloses the required scope, the soft-delete filtering rule, the security-relevant guarantee that signing secrets are never returned, and the partner-key scoping behavior. These are exactly the traits an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: permission and scope come first, then exclusions, then the return shape. The enumeration of returned fields partially duplicates the output schema, so a small amount of the text is redundant, though it aids quick reading.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still supplies the non-inferable essentials: auth scope, deleted-record exclusion, secret redaction, and tenant scoping. Together with the annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly implies no filtering is possible and that scoping is determined by the caller's credential rather than input. There is no parameter syntax to clarify.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List' + 'webhook endpoints') with explicit scope ('Your webhook endpoints'), which cleanly separates it from sibling mutations like webhook_set and webhook_delete. Nothing about the intent is ambiguous.

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 clear conditions: it requires webhooks:write, excludes deleted endpoints, and a partner grant key sees only endpoints it created. It never explicitly names an alternative tool or states when-not-to-use, but for an enumeration tool the usage context is essentially fully specified.

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

All apibase toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources