webhook_list_eventsRetrieve webhook events with optional status filtering and pagination to track pending, delivered, retrying, or dead-letter deliveries.
List received webhook events with optional status filtering and pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| status | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read-style list operation with optional filtering and pagination, which conveys the core behavior. It does not mention ordering, defaults, response shape, or potential side effects, but for a list endpoint the main behavioral risks are minimal.
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 single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and appends the key modifiers. It is concise and easy to parse, though slightly under-specified for the zero-coverage schema.
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?
The tool is a simple optional-parameter list operation, so a brief description is somewhat reasonable. Still, with no annotations and no output schema, the description could have provided more context about pagination behavior, default limits, or ordering. It is adequate for basic invocation but leaves some gaps for an agent to infer.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does mention that status filtering is optional and that pagination is supported, which maps to the status, limit, and offset parameters. However, it does not explain the meaning of limit and offset beyond what their names already imply, nor does it describe defaults or edge cases.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List received webhook events'. It also mentions optional status filtering and pagination, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like webhook_get_event, webhook_replay_event, and webhook_status. The scope is clear and the tool's purpose is immediately identifiable.
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?
The description implies the tool is for listing received webhook events, optionally filtered by status or paginated. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over webhook_get_event, webhook_replay_event, or other siblings. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.