mcp-template

settings.rotate_secret

Issue a new signing secret for a webhook subscription to replace expired or compromised credentials.

Instructions

Issue a new signing secret for a webhook subscription.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "subscription_id": "<subscription_id>"
    },
    "name": "settings.rotate_secret"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`user_id`	No
`subscription_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`secret`	Yes	New HMAC signing secret; shown only once

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a mutation (issuing a new secret) but does not disclose consequences like old secret invalidation, required permissions, or whether the operation is reversible. This is insufficient for safe usage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, short sentence that is front-loaded. However, it sacrifices essential detail for brevity, making it minimally adequate but not well-structured for completeness.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, an output schema exists but is not described, and the parameters are not explained. The description fails to provide a complete picture of the tool's behavior, input requirements, or effects, leaving significant gaps.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds no explanation for the parameters (subscription_id, user_id). It does not clarify the role of user_id or how subscription_id is used. The description fails to add value beyond the raw schema.

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 ('Issue a new signing secret') and the resource ('webhook subscription'). It is specific and distinguishable from most sibling tools, though there is a similar 'webhook_rotate_secret' tool that may overlap.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., webhook_rotate_secret), nor any prerequisites or conditions for rotation. The description lacks context for appropriate invocation.

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

Deploy Server