webhook_testSend a test event to a webhook and report the delivery result (status code and response). Verify webhook configuration and debug delivery issues.
Send a test event to a webhook and report the delivery result (status code, response).
| 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 openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this makes an external, repeatable-but-not-idempotent call. The description usefully adds that the result is a status code and response body, but says nothing about timeouts, retries, or whether the test event is measurable/flagged at the receiving end.
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 compact sentence with the action front-loaded and the return payload parenthetically clarified. Nothing is wasted and nothing essential is buried.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by stating what comes back (status code, response). Combined with 100% schema coverage of the two required ids, an agent has enough to invoke it, though side-effect behavior on the target system remains unstated.
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 required ids are documented in the schema (including cross-references to webhook_list and organization_list). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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?
The description names a specific verb ("Send a test event"), the target resource (a webhook), and the outcome ("report the delivery result"). This clearly separates it from sibling config tools like webhook_get or webhook_update, though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for verifying that a webhook actually delivers. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no warning about using it against production endpoints, and no comparison to alternatives like webhook_get (which inspects config rather than delivery).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.