get_webhook_bucketRead a bucket name and its configured HTTP response settings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bucket_id | Yes | bucket capability ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| dashboard_url | No | ||
| response_body | No | ||
| response_status | No | ||
| response_headers | No | ||
| webhook_endpoint | No | ||
| response_delay_ms | No | ||
| response_content_type | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / properties / response_delay_msAdded value: +{
+ "type": "integer"
+}Output schema / properties / response_headersAdded value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds a small detail (returns bucket name and HTTP response settings) but doesn't describe the response format, whether it returns all settings or a subset, or whether the bucket must exist. With readOnlyHint present, the bar is lower, and the description adds modest context.
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 concise sentence with zero wasted words. It clearly communicates the action and what is read.
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?
With an output schema present, annotations declaring read-only safety, and 100% schema parameter coverage, the tool is well-covered. The description supplements by naming what is read (bucket name + HTTP response settings). For a simple single-parameter read tool, this is reasonably complete, though it could clarify what the 'HTTP response settings' encompass.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% ('bucket capability ID' documents bucket_id fully). With 100% coverage and only 1 simple parameter, the baseline 3 applies. The description adds essentially no param-specific detail beyond what the schema provides.
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 states 'Read a bucket name and its configured HTTP response settings' with a specific verb (Read) and resource (bucket), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like create/delete/configure_webhook_response. It doesn't fully differentiate from get_webhook (which may be a related but distinct resource), but the purpose is clear.
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 it's a read operation for a single bucket identified by bucket_id, which gives a sense of when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., list_webhooks for enumeration or clear_webhooks for a different action), nor any prerequisites or context about when this tool is preferred over get_webhook.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct: bucket lifecycle (create/delete/get/list/clear), response configuration, and webhook capture reading (get/list/wait) each target clear operations. There is minor potential confusion between get_webhook_bucket (bucket settings) and get_webhook (a capture), and clear_webhooks vs delete_webhook_bucket both involve deletion, but descriptions differentiate them adequately.
Tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create/delete/get/list/clear/configure/wait_for + webhook bucket or webhook). The pattern is mostly uniform snake_case with predictable verbs, though wait_for_webhook and configure_webhook_response deviate slightly from the simple get/list/create/delete set, and the 'webhooks' vs 'webhook_bucket' noun variation is somewhat mixed.
Eight tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range and every tool serves a distinct, meaningful purpose for a webhook testing service. The surface covers capture, bucket lifecycle, response configuration, and polling without redundancy or bloat.
The surface covers the full lifecycle: create/get/delete buckets, clear captures, configure responses, read/list/wait for captures. The main gap is an absent update capture or redaction toggle operation, but the core workflows for testing webhooks—configure, capture, inspect—are fully covered.