PingRoom

Update Webhook

update_webhook

Destructive

Update an incoming webhook (by id) on a room the account owns — e.g. change its icon, title, message, or sound.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`icon`	No	A v3 room-icon catalog id, e.g. "bell". Call list_room_icons to discover the valid ids.
`name`	No	Webhook name (shown to the owner).
`color`	No	Hex color, e.g. "#e33122".
`sound`	No	Canonical sound id, e.g. "ting".
`title`	No	Push title used when the webhook fires.
`enabled`	No	Whether the webhook is active.
`message`	No	Default push body (max 120 characters in private rooms, 160 in public rooms).
`webhook_id`	Yes	Webhook id (from list_webhooks or create_webhook).
`invite_code`	Yes	Room invite code.
`action_number`	No	Quick-action slot to attribute fires to.
`cooldown_seconds`	No	Minimum seconds between fires.
`regenerate_secret`	No	Rotate the secret trigger URL.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes	An incoming webhook. `webhook_url` embeds the secret — treat it as a credential.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed4 schema fields changedSep 1, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / result / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

changedOutput schema / properties / result / description

Previous value: -"Purpose-built PingRoom result with credential and account fields removed."New value: +"An incoming webhook. `webhook_url` embeds the secret — treat it as a credential."

addedOutput schema / properties / result / properties

Added value: +{
+  "action_number": {
+    "type": [
+      "integer",
+      "null"
+    ]
+  },
+  "color": {
+    "type": [
+      "string",
+      "null"
+    ]
+  },
+  "cooldown_seconds": {
+    "type": [
+      "integer",
+      "null"
+    ]
+  },
+  "enabled": {
+    "type": "boolean"
+  },
+  "icon": {
+    "type": [
+      "string",
+      "null"
+    ]
+  },
+  "id": {
+    "format": "uuid",
+    "type": [
+      "string",
+      "null"
+    ]
+  },
+  "message": {
+    "type": [
+      "string",
+      "null"
+    ]
+  },
+  "name": {
+    "type": [
+      "string",
+      "null"
+    ]
+  },
+  "sound": {
+    "type": [
+      "string",
+      "null"
+    ]
+  },
+  "title": {
+    "type": [
+      "string",
+      "null"
+    ]
+  },
+  "webhook_url": {
+    "type": [
+      "string",
+      "null"
+    ]
+  }
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / result / type
```
Added value: +"object"
```

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description adds the ownership requirement and that the update targets an existing webhook by id. It does not disclose the concrete destructive consequences (e.g., overwriting settings or that regenerating the secret invalidates the old trigger URL), relying on the schema and annotation to carry that burden.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource up front, which is appropriately concise. It loses one point because the 'title, message' example list is not aligned with the actual schema properties, so not every part of the sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The schema covers all parameter semantics and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. Still, for a destructive multi-option update tool, the description omits prerequisites (e.g., obtaining webhook_id from list_webhooks) and the overwrite/rotation consequences, leaving an agent to discover these from the schema and annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3, but the description actually adds confusion by naming 'title, message, or sound' when the schema exposes icon, name, color, sound, action_number, cooldown_seconds, and regenerate_secret — there is no title or message parameter. This can lead an agent to attempt invalid parameters under additionalProperties:false.

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?

The description names a specific action ('Update'), a concrete resource ('incoming webhook (by id)'), and a scope ('on a room the account owns'). It also gives concrete examples of what can be changed, so an agent can distinguish this from sibling create_webhook, delete_webhook, and list_webhooks.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The ownership condition ('on a room the account owns') implies the user must have an owned room and an existing webhook id. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions versus create_webhook/delete_webhook, leaving the routing decision mostly to inference.

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

All PingRoom tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Several tools overlap in purpose: broadcast, trigger_quick_action, create_handoff, ask_question, request_approval, and live_status can all deliver a ping or prompt to a human, and the wait_for_* family has five similar long-polling variants. The detailed descriptions help, but the update_quick_action/update_quick_actions pair and the activate_agent_inbox/handoff flow still create real selection ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set overwhelmingly follows verb_noun conventions like create_, get_, list_, update_, delete_, and wait_for_, making the naming predictable and searchable. A few outliers — broadcast, connection_info, and live_status — break the pattern, and the live_status/get_live_status pair is less obvious than it could be.

Tool Count2/5

40 tools is a heavy surface for one MCP server, even with a broad feature set spanning rooms, webhooks, quick actions, questions, approvals, handoffs, attachments, and live status. The count feels inflated by many narrow wait/get variants that could be consolidated or exposed through fewer, more composable operations.

Completeness3/5

Core workflows around questions, approvals, handoffs, webhooks, quick actions, and attachments are mostly covered with create/read/list/wait operations. However, the room lifecycle is missing obvious delete or leave operations, and approvals lack list/cancel capabilities, leaving notable gaps for an agent managing those resources.

Resources

Need Help?