Skip to main content
Glama

Get webhook

get_webhook
Read-onlyIdempotent

One webhook with its settings, found by its handler url (webhook/get): {object: {id, url, status, events, …}}.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "get_webhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesthe webhook's handler URL — webhooks are identified by it

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so safety context is covered structurally. The description adds a sketch of the returned object (id, url, status, events, …) and confirms URL-based identity, but says nothing about not-found behavior or whether the payload is truncated. Note: the schema description already states webhooks are identified by URL, so that part is not new context – the return-shape hint is the only real addition, hence a 3.

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?

One compact sentence with the lookup key front-loaded and the return shape appended in a parenthetical. The '(webhook/get)' API-path fragment is mild noise but does not obscure meaning.

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?

With one parameter, full schema coverage, and rich annotations, the description provides everything needed to call the tool plus a rough return shape despite no output schema. Only not-found/error behavior is left unstated, which is a minor gap.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema description already explains that the URL is the identifier, so the description mainly restates it. This is the expected baseline when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('One webhook ... found by its handler url') and indicates the lookup key, which is enough to distinguish it from list_webhooks at a glance. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the list sibling, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'one webhook' suggests a single-record fetch versus a list, but the description never says when to use this instead of list_webhooks or what happens if the URL is unknown. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.