A
licenseNot graded
qualityA
maintenanceA webhook management and delivery service with MCP tools for endpoints, deliveries, relay, and incoming webhooks, enabling autonomous agents to send, track, and relay webhooks.
MIT
Tern MCP
by Hookflo
Related Servers
Alternatives to Tern MCP
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityNot gradedmaintenanceAn MCP server that enables sending data to webhooks via HTTP POST for both local and remote team environments. It provides a tool for relaying task descriptions, custom metadata, and automated notifications to external services.4 npm-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceA production-grade MCP server offering modules for GitHub issue/PR triage, live website auditing, and automated release note generation. It provides robust security features like write-operation confirmation gates, rate limiting, and dual-read storage backends.MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA unified MCP server with composable tools for GitHub operations, file management, shell execution, kanban boards, Discord messaging, and package management. Features role-based security, HTTP/stdio transports, and a web-based development UI.-
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceA production-ready MCP server with 24 tools for Stripe, Twilio, Resend, GitHub, and Slack, plus pre-built workflow prompts and live resources.242 npm1MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol (MCP) server for managing GitHub webhooks at both organization and repository levels.8MIT
TDQS
A4.1/5.0
Scored across 5 tools
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: add_webhook creates handlers, get_capabilities provides an overview, list_platforms enumerates supported platforms, manage_dlq handles failed events, and verify_signature validates signatures. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., add_webhook, list_platforms, manage_dlq, verify_signature), but get_capabilities deviates slightly by using 'get' instead of a more descriptive verb like 'list' or 'show'. This minor inconsistency does not significantly hinder readability.
Tool Count5/5
With 5 tools, the set is well-scoped for a webhook management server, covering key areas like setup, platform support, failure handling, and verification. Each tool earns its place without feeling excessive or insufficient for the domain.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers core webhook workflows including creation, platform listing, signature verification, and dead letter queue management. A minor gap is the lack of tools for updating or deleting webhooks, but agents can likely work around this given the server's focus on verification and management rather than full CRUD operations.
Maintenance
ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues