Modify an existing webhook by updating its endpoint URL, subscribed events, or enabled/disabled status to keep integrations aligned with current needs.
Update a webhook's endpoint, events, or status (PATCH /webhooks/:id).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The webhook id. | |
| events | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| endpoint | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses PATCH semantics (partial update) but omits whether omitted fields are unchanged, whether updates are idempotent, permission requirements, or side effects. The mutation is implied but not elaborated.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the operation and resource, with the HTTP method parenthetical adding clarity with zero waste.
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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this is under-specified. Missing return value, error behavior, and any prerequisites. The HTTP method and field list are helpful but do not cover the full calling context.
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 only 25% (only 'id' documented). The description names the three updatable fields ('endpoint, events, or status') but adds no details about their formats, constraints, or behavior (e.g., what events array entries look like, what status values are valid). It does not compensate for the low schema coverage.
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?
States a specific verb ('Update'), resource ('webhook'), and the affected fields ('endpoint, events, or status'), clearly distinguishing it from other webhook tools like create/delete/get. The HTTP method parenthetical reinforces the mutation intent.
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?
Implies usage when modifying an existing webhook's configuration, but provides no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives. The PATCH method hints at partial updates, but there is no guidance on choosing between this and other webhook operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.