roki_get_webhook_guideEverything about webhooks: portal registration, event types, payload shape, HMAC signature verification over the raw body, idempotent processing, and the polling fallback.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read-only operation. The description adds useful context about the guide's coverage, including HMAC verification over the raw body and the polling fallback, without contradicting annotations. However, it does not disclose the exact return format or whether the content is static, so a slight gap remains.
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 a single sentence with a compact list of topics, making it easy to skim and front-loaded with the primary subject 'webhooks'. The phrase 'Everything' is slightly hyperbolic, but it doesn't add significant clutter. It could be slightly more precise, but overall structure is clean.
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?
For a no-parameter guide tool, the description adequately enumerates the covered topics, giving an agent a clear basis to decide whether to call it. There is no output schema, and the description does not clarify the return format (e.g., a text blob or a link), which introduces minor ambiguity, but it covers the key decision-relevant content.
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 has zero parameters and an empty input schema, making parameter information irrelevant. The schema description coverage is trivially 100%, and the description correctly omits parameter details. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters, and nothing here lowers that.
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 clearly identifies this as a guide/reference for webhooks, listing specific topics such as portal registration, event types, payload shape, HMAC signature verification, idempotent processing, and polling fallback. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like roki_verify_webhook_signature, which performs verification rather than documents it. However, the opening phrase 'Everything about webhooks' is broad and lacks a sharp boundary, preventing a perfect score.
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 description implies usage when an agent needs webhook information, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over related alternatives such as roki_verify_webhook_signature or roki_get_doc_section. No exclusions, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving usage to be inferred rather than explicit.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, from searching docs to validating requests to verifying webhook signatures. Even similarly named tools like roki_get_integration_example and roki_scaffold_integration are differentiated by 'complete runnable' vs 'skeleton'.
Tools mostly follow a roki_verb_noun pattern (get, list, search, validate, verify), but a few deviate with noun-only names like roki_status and roki_sandbox_info. The prefix and clear verbs make the pattern predictable overall.
18 tools is on the heavy side, but each serves a distinct role in the integration workflow covered by this server. The count is justified given the breadth of documentation, validation, sandbox, and example generation features.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of an integration: discovery (search_docs, list_operations), learning (guides, examples, schemas), validation (validate_request), sandbox testing (sandbox_try), verification (verify_webhook_signature), and post-integration auditing. No obvious gaps for the server's stated purpose.