test_one
Sends a test request to a household's webhook to verify its configuration and integration.
Instructions
Test One [POST /api/households/webhooks/{item_id}/test]
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_id | Yes |
Sends a test request to a household's webhook to verify its configuration and integration.
Test One [POST /api/households/webhooks/{item_id}/test]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or what side effects occur (e.g., sends a test event, logs something). This is a significant gap for a tool with no structural safety signals.
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 extremely short (two lines), which might be concise, but it lacks substance. The first line is just the title repeated, and the second line is the HTTP method and path. It does not effectively front-load key information beyond what the schema provides.
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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description should clearly explain purpose, behavior, and parameter semantics. It fails on all fronts, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool correctly.
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 coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the single parameter 'item_id'. The endpoint path hints at its role, but without explanation of format or expected value (e.g., which webhook's ID), the agent cannot construct a valid request confidently.
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 includes the endpoint path 'POST /api/households/webhooks/{item_id}/test', which indicates it tests a webhook by item_id. However, it does not clarify what 'test' means (e.g., sends a ping, validates URL). The title 'Test One' is vague and does not differentiate from similar tools like 'test_notification'.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'test_notification' or 'trigger_action'. The description provides no context for selection or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/2fst4u/mealie-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server