WhitePact

Check Webhook Delivery Health

rai_webhook_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check webhook delivery health and generate a status report with health grade, failure analysis, dead-letter queue status, and remediation actions.

Instructions

Check webhook delivery health and generate a structured status report. Takes delivery statistics and returns health grade, failure analysis, dead-letter queue status, and recommended remediation actions. Used by Security Engineers feeding SIEM systems and Platform Engineers debugging webhook pipelines.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "rai_webhook_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`failed`	No
`endpoints`	No
`successful`	No
`avg_latency_ms`	No
`total_deliveries`	No
`dead_letter_count`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.6Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds what the report contains (health grade, failure analysis, dead-letter queue status, remediation actions), which is useful given no output schema, but does not describe permissions, rate limits, or other operational traits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then input/output, then audience. No redundant or filler content; every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has six parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema. While the description covers the high-level purpose and output, it fails to explain the parameters an agent must supply, leaving a significant gap for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the full burden of explaining the six parameters. It only says 'Takes delivery statistics' generically and does not clarify the meaning, format, or role of any parameter such as 'endpoints' or 'dead_letter_count'.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (webhook delivery health) plus the output (structured status report). It is clearly distinct from general health tools like rai_health by virtue of 'webhook', but does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides intended users (Security/Platform Engineers) and contexts (SIEM, debugging pipelines), which implies when it is useful, but offers no explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' guidance or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.