everyinfra_webhook_testSend one signed webhook.test event to the configured endpoint now and report the HTTP status and latency. Not retried; at most 5 per minute. Needs the settings:write account scope, which is off by default and can only be granted by the account owner in the console.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false) by disclosing that it is not retried, is rate-limited to 5 per minute, and requires the settings:write scope which is off by default and grantable only by the account owner in the console. That is exactly the kind of auth and limit context an agent needs before calling.
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?
Three tight clauses: action first, then retry/rate-limit constraints, then the auth requirement. Nothing is repeated from the title or annotations and every sentence earns its place.
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?
Even without an output schema, the description states what is returned (HTTP status and latency), plus retry, rate-limit, and permission behavior. For a zero-parameter test action, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries nothing to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed ('now', to the configured endpoint).
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?
States a specific verb (send) plus the exact event type (one signed webhook.test) and its target (the configured endpoint), and names the key output (HTTP status and latency). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling everyinfra_webhook_set, which configures the endpoint this tool tests.
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 word 'now' plus 'configured endpoint' establishes the context: use this to verify an already-configured webhook. However, it never explicitly names everyinfra_webhook_set as the prerequisite/alternative, so the routing to a sibling is implied rather than stated.
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.