Retrieve the current webhook or git trigger preset for a specified Zadig workflow. Use it to inspect or verify trigger configuration before making updates.
Get the current webhook/git trigger preset for one Zadig workflow.
| 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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention permission requirements, side effects, rate limits, or other behavior beyond the bare action. It provides minimal transparency for an unannotated tool.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the object, and the scope in a compact form, earning its place fully.
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 getter, and the presence of an output schema means return-value structure does not need to be described. However, the absence of usage guidance and parameter semantics leaves noticeable gaps for an unannotated tool with three parameters.
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, but it only clarifies the role of workflow_name via 'one Zadig workflow'. The include_raw and project_key parameters are left entirely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess their meaning from names and defaults alone.
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 clearly states a specific action ('Get') and a specific resource ('current webhook/git trigger preset for one Zadig workflow'). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like zadig_workflow_webhook_list or zadig_workflow_webhook_compare_to_preset.
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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'for one Zadig workflow' names the target resource but does not explain when this tool is preferable to webhook listing or comparison tools, nor does it mention any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.