ChatPush MCP Server

Official

by ChatPush

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Hybrid

List webhooks

list_webhooks

Read-only

Retrieve all registered ChatPush webhooks to see where events are delivered and get webhook IDs needed for updates or deletions.

Instructions

List all registered webhooks for this ChatPush account. Use it to see where events are delivered or to find a webhook ID before updating or deleting it.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_webhooks"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already establish that this is a safe, non-mutating read against external account state, so the description's bar is lower. It adds useful scoping ('this ChatPush account') and workflow context (IDs feed update/delete), but says nothing about result shape, ordering, or whether the set can be truncated.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first states what is returned, the second states when to reach for it. The purpose is front-loaded and nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a zero-parameter read-only list tool with full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose and usage adequately. The only remaining gap is the absence of an output schema combined with no hint about what fields a webhook record contains, which is a minor shortfall rather than a blocker.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The account-scoping phrase is consistent with the empty schema and implicitly confirms no filtering inputs exist.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List all registered webhooks') plus scope ('for this ChatPush account'), which cleanly separates it from get_webhook, update_webhook, and delete_webhook in the sibling list. An agent can identify the correct tool without opening any schema.

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?

It names two concrete use cases: inspecting where events are delivered and resolving a webhook ID ahead of an update or delete. It stops short of an explicit exclusion such as 'use get_webhook when you already have the ID', so it is clear context rather than a full routing rule.

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