Skip to main content
Glama

server_update_webhook

Modify webhook configurations for Minecraft servers managed by crafty-mcp to adjust notification settings and integration parameters.

Instructions

Update an existing webhook for a Minecraft server

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
server_idYesServer ID or UUID
webhook_idYesWebhook ID to update
updatesYesWebhook fields to update

Implementation Reference

  • Registration and implementation of the 'server_update_webhook' tool. The handler uses the 'client.patch' method to update the webhook details.
    server.tool(
      "server_update_webhook",
      "Update an existing webhook for a Minecraft server",
      {
        server_id: z.string().describe("Server ID or UUID"),
        webhook_id: z.string().describe("Webhook ID to update"),
        updates: z.record(z.string(), z.unknown()).describe("Webhook fields to update"),
      },
      async ({ server_id, webhook_id, updates }) => {
        try {
          const data = await client.patch(
            `/servers/${server_id}/webhooks/${webhook_id}`,
            updates
          );
          return { content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(data, null, 2) }] };
        } catch (error) {
          const msg = error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error);
          return { content: [{ type: "text", text: `Error: ${msg}` }], isError: true };
        }
      }
    );
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates an existing webhook, implying a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose critical traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response looks like (since there's no output schema). This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Update an existing webhook for a Minecraft server') with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., side effects, error handling), usage context, and output information, which are critical for an agent to invoke this tool correctly. The high schema coverage helps with inputs, but overall context is insufficient given the tool's potential complexity.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'server_id', 'webhook_id', and 'updates'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't specify what fields can be in 'updates' or provide examples). Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('existing webhook for a Minecraft server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'server_create_webhook' and 'server_delete_webhook' by specifying it's for updates, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other webhook-related tools like 'server_test_webhook' or 'server_get_webhook'.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing webhook), exclusions (e.g., what can't be updated), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'server_update' or other webhook operations, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/HadiCherkaoui/crafty-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server