Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

AnyHook

by net.anyhook
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Mock a webhook

anyhook_mock
Destructive

Generate a webhook request with a valid signature for Stripe, GitHub, or Slack. If targetUrl is provided, the request is POSTed there and the response is returned. This hosted server reaches public https URLs only; to reach localhost, run npx -y anyhook-mcp.

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": {
      "provider": "<provider>",
      "event": "<event>"
    },
    "name": "anyhook_mock"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNoOptional fields to deep-merge into the fixture.
eventYesEvent name (e.g. 'payment_intent.succeeded' for Stripe).
secretNoSigning secret. Falls back to a deterministic default per provider.
providerYesWebhook provider to simulate.
targetUrlNoIf set, POST the generated request to this URL and return the response.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / data / propertyNames
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description corroborates with concrete operational detail: an outbound POST occurs when targetUrl is set, and the sandbox reaches only public https endpoints. It doesn't cover rate limits, whether generated traffic is recorded, or whether the POST is retried/blocking, but against the supplied annotations it adds real context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is generated and followed by the conditional POST behavior and the environment constraint. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns. It explains the targetUrl branch returns the POST response but never says what is returned when targetUrl is omitted (presumably the signed request payload), nor what fields that payload contains, which matters because generating the signed request is the tool's core mode.

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 description coverage is 100%, so provider, event, secret, data, and targetUrl are all documented in the schema. The description mostly restates the targetUrl behavior; it adds only the marginal detail that the remote response is returned, and adds nothing about the data deep-merge or secret fallback beyond what the schema says.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Generate a webhook request with a valid signature') and names the three supported providers (Stripe, GitHub, Slack), which lets an agent distinguish this simulation tool from siblings like anyhook_replay or anyhook_verify without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It states the condition that changes behavior: with targetUrl the request is POSTed and the response returned. It also gives a deployment-level usage rule (hosted server only reaches public https URLs; use npx -y anyhook-mcp for localhost). It stops short of naming sibling tools or when one should be preferred over replaying/verifying real events.

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

All AnyHook toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources