Update a workspace webhook's configuration, including its name, enabled/disabled state, events, headers, and retry settings.
Update Workspace Webhook
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The display name of the webhook (used for display purposes only). | |
| events | No | ||
| webhook_id | Yes | The unique ID for the webhook | |
| is_disabled | Yes | Whether to disable or enable the webhook | |
| retry_enabled | No | ||
| request_headers | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on what is replaced or overwritten, no auth/permission requirements, no mention that updates are non-idempotent despite the annotation. It neither contradicts nor enriches the annotations.
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 four-word fragment with no wasted words, but this is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. There is no front-loaded statement of behavior because there is no content at all.
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?
This is a non-idempotent mutation tool with six parameters (three required), half of them undocumented, no output schema, and no annotations-level detail repeated or extended in the description. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present.
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 50% (events, retry_enabled, and request_headers are undocumented), so the description is expected to compensate — and it does not. It provides zero information about any of the six parameters, including which three are required.
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 'Update Workspace Webhook' is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title (edit_workspace_webhook_route / 'Edit Workspace Webhook Route'). It conveys only the bare verb+resource and offers nothing to distinguish it from siblings such as create_workspace_webhook_route, get_workspace_webhooks_route, or delete_workspace_webhook_route.
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 guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling routes (create/get/delete_workspace_webhook_route) an agent must choose between. The agent is left to infer everything from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.