Hookbase MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that deliveries 'represent attempts to forward webhooks to destinations,' which adds some context about the data. However, it fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (implied by 'offset' but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like. For a query tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the tool's function and clarify what deliveries are. There is no wasted text, making it efficient. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning pagination or filtering context.

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?

Given the complexity of a query tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output format, pagination behavior, error handling, or usage context. Without annotations or an output schema, the agent has insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'optional filters' but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema specifies. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Query webhook deliveries with optional filters.' It specifies the verb ('query') and resource ('webhook deliveries'), and distinguishes them as 'attempts to forward webhooks to destinations.' However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'hookbase_list_events' or 'hookbase_get_delivery,' which reduces the score from a 5.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'optional filters' but does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without any context on usage compared to siblings like 'hookbase_list_events' or 'hookbase_get_delivery,' the agent lacks direction.

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