list_webhooksA company's webhooks and how their last delivery went.
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": {
"orgId": "<orgId>"
},
"name": "list_webhooks"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orgId | Yes | Company ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact beyond that — that results include the last delivery outcome — but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether webhooks with no deliveries are included.
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?
It is a single short sentence with no padding, so nothing is wasted, but it is under-specified rather than concise — a fragment that conveys the resource but not the action or scope. Front-loading is fine given the length.
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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the essentials are present, and no output schema exists so return shape need not be explained. Missing is any hint about result scope (all webhooks? delivery summary format?) and the boundary with get_delivery_record.
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?
Only one parameter (orgId) exists and the schema documents it at 100% coverage as 'Company ID.', so the schema carries the load. The description adds no further meaning about that parameter, which is the expected baseline-3 case when schema coverage is high.
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 identifies the resource (a company's webhooks) and an extra payload (last delivery outcome), but it is a noun-phrase fragment with no verb and no pluralization/scope statement. It also overlaps ambiguously with the sibling get_delivery_record, which appears to cover delivery detail, leaving unclear what this tool returns versus that one.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites (e.g., permission or org context), and no mention of alternatives such as get_delivery_record for deeper delivery history. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
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.