ChatPush MCP Server

Official

by ChatPush

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Hybrid

Get webhook

get_webhook

Read-only

Retrieve a webhook's target URL and subscribed event types by its ID to verify or troubleshoot delivery configuration.

Instructions

Get details of a specific webhook by its ID: the URL it posts to and the event types it subscribes to.

Tool call template

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_webhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Webhook ID (from create_webhook or list_webhooks).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, making the safe-read behavior explicit. The description adds useful transparency by disclosing what the operation returns (URL and event types), and its scoping to a single ID. No contradictory side effects are suggested.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the action and the output fields without wasted words. Every element earns its place, and the description is immediately scannable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read-only tool, the description is complete: annotations cover safety, the schema covers the parameter, and the description covers the return contents (URL and event types). No output schema exists, but the return information is explicitly provided, leaving no critical gap.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters and already documents id as the Webhook ID with a source hint (from create_webhook or list_webhooks). The description only restates identification by ID without adding syntax, constraints, or relationships beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description states a specific verb+resource: 'Get details of a specific webhook by its ID'. It also enumerates the returned payload ('the URL it posts to and the event types it subscribes to'), making it distinct from sibling tools like list_webhooks (all webhooks) and update/delete/create_webhook (mutations).

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?

The description implies the correct use case: when you already have a webhook ID and need its configuration details. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the 'by its ID' condition gives clear context that distinguishes it from list_webhooks and mutation tools.

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