Skip to main content
Glama

domani

by run.domani

Update Webhook

update_webhook

Update an existing webhook's URL, subscribed events, active status, or encrypted auth headers. Use list_webhooks to get the webhook ID first.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoNew HTTPS URL for the webhook
activeNoSet to false to pause the webhook, true to resume
eventsNoNew list of event types to subscribe to
headersNoReplace auth headers. Only Authorization and X-API-Key are accepted. Send {} to clear them.
webhook_idYesID of the webhook to update

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / headers
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "description": "Replace auth headers. Only Authorization and X-API-Key are accepted. Send {} to clear them.",
+  "propertyNames": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it merely names fields but does not explain update semantics such as replacement vs merge, side effects on active deliveries, secret management, irreversible changes, or what response/confirmation the agent can expect. The schema's 'Replace auth headers' and 'Set to false to pause' hint at behavior, but the description itself adds no behavioral detail beyond pointing out the webhook_id.

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?

Two efficient sentences, both informative and ordered well: the world is front-loaded first and the prerequisite is provided immediately after. No filler or irrelevant detail.

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?

The description is a reasonable starting point and likely answers a selection, but for a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema it leaves several details unstated—e.g., whether omitted fields are retained or reset, whether at least one optional field should be supplied, and how results are reported. The schema covers parameter meaning, but contextual coverage of the operation itself is only partial.

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 the input schema already documents each parameter, the description only repeats field categories without adding deeper meaning. It does reinforce that the webhook ID comes from list_webhooks, which is a slight addition, but not enough to go above baseline.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing webhook'), and enumerates which mutable fields are affected: URL, subscribed events, active status, and auth headers. This clearly differentiates from siblings like create_webhook and delete_webhook.

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?

Directly tells an agent to call list_webhooks first to obtain the required webhook_id, which establishes a prerequisite and avoids a common failure. It doesn't explicitly contrast alternatives, but the existing context makes the intended use clear.

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

All domani toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

While most tools have distinct purposes, several clusters overlap significantly (e.g., check_email, check_email_deliverability, get_email_deliverability, get_domain_email_status; buy_domain, buy_aftermarket, acquire_domain). The descriptions are detailed and help differentiate, but the sheer number of tools makes it challenging for an agent to select the correct one without careful reading.

Naming Consistency3/5

The dominant pattern is verb_noun with underscores (e.g., create_mailbox, list_domains), but there are notable inconsistencies: destructive actions mix delete/remove/cancel/revoke/unsell, and a few names deviate entirely (search, dns_check, domain_status). The pattern is recognizable but not uniformly applied.

Tool Count1/5

With 122 tools, this vastly exceeds the 50+ threshold for extreme mismatch. Even for a comprehensive domain and email platform, the tool count is overwhelming and will likely hinder agent performance through excessive choice and context bloat.

Completeness4/5

The server covers a wide range of domains, DNS, email, marketplace, negotiations, transfers, webhooks, tokens, and billing. Minor gaps exist, such as no update operation for mail rules, no direct domain deletion, and limited mailbox configuration beyond forwarding and credentials, but most lifecycle workflows are supported.

Resources