Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
webhook-crash-lab-mcp

webhook-crash-lab-mcp

by Krrishkumar125
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

List crash-lab scenarios

list_scenarios
Read-only

Lists every webhook crash scenario crash-lab can run, showing what it sends, why it matters, and how to fix failures.

Instructions

List every scenario crash-lab can run, with what it sends, why it matters in production, and how to fix a failure.

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": "list_scenarios"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scenariosYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.4

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful coverage claim that it returns 'every scenario' (no filtering or pagination), but its listing of returned fields largely restates what the output schema already documents, so the added behavioral value is modest.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action, the scope ('every scenario'), and what each result contains, with no wasted wording or hedging.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only, zero-parameter listing tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly. The only missing piece is a pointer to the follow-up tools (run_crash_lab, explain_report), which would complete the discovery-to-execution workflow.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies. The schema is empty and correctly so.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List every scenario crash-lab can run') and names the informational payload each entry carries, so its purpose is immediately distinguishable from run_crash_lab and explain_report. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the siblings, so the discovery-first usage pattern is only implied by the word 'List'. For a zero-parameter enumeration tool the intent is reasonably obvious, but the definition does no active routing.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools