wait_for_webhookReturn the latest capture, wait for a newer capture, or report received=false after the timeout.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bucket_id | Yes | ||
| wait_seconds | No | seconds to wait; defaults to 20 and cannot exceed 25 | |
| max_body_bytes | No | ||
| after_webhook_id | No | wait for a capture newer than this webhook ID | |
| include_sensitive | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error | No | ||
| webhook | No | ||
| received | Yes |
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?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes safety, and the description adds valuable behavioral context about blocking until a newer capture arrives and reporting received=false after timeout. This extra detail about the polling behavior goes beyond the annotation.
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, dense sentence that front-loads the core behavior and contains no filler or redundant information. It is concise and well-structured.
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?
The description sufficiently covers the main execution flow (return latest, wait for newer, or false after timeout) and is complemented by an output schema. It does not elaborate on all parameter interactions, but the core behavior is clear enough for a waiting tool.
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 only 40%, and the tool description provides no additional parameter explanations. Fields like max_body_bytes and include_sensitive are left undescribed, while wait_seconds and after_webhook_id rely solely on their schema descriptions.
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 specifies the tool's behavior: returning the latest capture, waiting for a newer capture, or reporting received=false after timeout. This distinctively separates it from sibling tools focused on managing buckets or retrieving individual webhooks.
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 for waiting on webhook captures, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_webhook or list_webhooks. No when-not-to-use conditions or prerequisites are provided.
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.