Detect mismatches between saved webhook/git trigger settings and the current workflow webhook preset to validate configuration alignment before updates.
Compare saved webhook/git trigger settings with the current workflow webhook preset.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_raw | No | ||
| project_key | No | ||
| workflow_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 behavioral burden. The verb 'Compare' strongly implies a read-only operation and no side effects, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose details such as required permissions, whether the comparison is purely local, or how include_raw affects the comparison behavior.
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 one clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is slightly under-specified, but it is appropriately concise and communicates the core operation immediately.
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?
Given no annotations, 0% parameter description coverage, and an output schema that may explain returns, the description still leaves the agent without guidance on optional parameters or usage context. It is minimally sufficient to identify the tool but not fully enough to invoke it confidently in all cases.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not explain workflow_name, project_key, or include_raw. It adds domain context about webhook/git trigger settings, which helps somewhat, but it does not compensate for the missing parameter-level semantics.
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 names a specific verb ('Compare'), a specific resource ('saved webhook/git trigger settings'), and a specific reference point ('current workflow webhook preset'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like webhook_list and webhook_preset, which are about listing or getting presets rather than comparing.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as zadig_workflow_webhook_list or zadig_workflow_webhook_preset. The comparison purpose is implied, but the description does not state when it should be preferred or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.