webhook_getRetrieve a specific webhook's details using its ID and organization ID. View configuration or status for a single webhook.
Get one webhook by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| webhookId | Yes | The webhook id (see webhook_list). | |
| organizationId | Yes | The organization id. Use organization_list to find it. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on behavior for a missing/invalid webhookId, error semantics, or scope requirements — so it contributes no behavioral value.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though arguably so terse that it omits context that could have earned its place.
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?
For a trivial two-parameter read with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the essentials are present, but with no output schema the description could have described the returned webhook shape or the not-found case. Adequate, not complete.
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 100%, and both parameters carry inline guidance (webhookId points to webhook_list; organizationId points to organization_list). The description adds nothing 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb+resource ('Get one webhook') qualified by the lookup key ('by id'), so the singular fetch is distinguishable from webhook_list. It never names a sibling or clarifies the scope boundary against webhook_list beyond the implicit singular/plural distinction.
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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, even though webhook_list is an obvious sibling an agent might choose instead. The reader must infer that you need an already-known webhookId.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.