Resumes a webhook
Resumes a webhook @param api_key: The api key allocated to your application @param token: The wallet_api_token provided by /access/login @param wallet_fk: The wallet_fk provided by /access/login
@return: a json object
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | ||
| api_key | Yes | ||
| wallet_fk | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are empty, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Resumes a webhook' without disclosing effects, idempotency, or required state (e.g., must be paused first). The @param and @return sections provide some context but not behavioral detail.
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 short but redundant, repeating 'Resumes a webhook' twice. The @param/@return structure is clear, but the duplication is unnecessary.
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 lacks essential context about what 'resuming' entails, including whether a webhook must already exist or how the webhook is identified given no webhook-specific parameter. It also doesn't mention any relationship to webhook_set or webhook_view. The output schema exists but the return is vaguely described as 'a json object' in the description.
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 description includes @param lines that explain the source of each value: api_key is allocated to the application, token and wallet_fk are from /access/login. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema type definitions. However, it doesn't explain the role of wallet_fk or how these are used in the resume operation.
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 uses the verb 'resumes' with the resource 'webhook', clearly indicating the action. It does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like netfluid__webhook_pause, but the opposite nature is implied.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as webhook_pause or webhook_set. The description only restates the operation without providing context or prerequisites.
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.
Several tools have overlapping or identical purposes (e.g., netfluid__session and netfluid__session_2_token, netfluid__email and netfluid__send_email). With 142 tools spanning wallet, crypto, funding, and paywall features, distinguishing between similar account/crypto/balance tools requires careful reading of descriptions.
Most tools follow a snake_case pattern with a netfluid__ or paywall__ prefix, but there are inconsistencies like netfluid__session_2_token, netfluid__netfluid_voucher_check, and single-noun tools (netfluid__skill, netfluid__fees). The two namespaces use slightly different conventions, making the overall set feel less uniform.
At 142 tools, this is an extremely large surface for any MCP server. Even for a comprehensive financial platform, this exceeds practical usability and likely includes duplicates or overly granular operations.
The tool set covers a wide range of operations including account management, crypto transactions, funding methods, withdrawals, and paywall subscriptions. However, the presence of duplicate tools suggests redundancy rather than a clean, minimal complete surface, and some workflows may require chaining many tools.