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 states the tool queries events but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by offset/limit but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the response format looks like (no output schema). The description is too minimal for a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations.

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 the core purpose in the first clause. It consists of two efficient sentences with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from context, but it's still highly efficient.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., pagination, auth), usage guidelines, and any explanation of return values. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to provide the necessary operational context for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 fully documents all 7 parameters with descriptions, defaults, and enums. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond mentioning 'optional filters' generically. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance understanding.

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 events with optional filters' specifies the verb (query) and resource (webhook events). It distinguishes from siblings like hookbase_get_event (singular) and hookbase_list_deliveries (different resource), though not explicitly. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from other list tools like hookbase_list_sources, so it's not a perfect 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 doesn't specify scenarios or prerequisites. For example, it doesn't contrast with hookbase_get_event (single event) or hookbase_list_deliveries (deliveries vs events), 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.