NexTool MCP for GLPI

Enable or disable webhook

glpi_set_webhook_active

DestructiveIdempotent

Toggle a GLPI webhook on or off by ID while keeping its existing definition intact.

Instructions

Turn a webhook on or off without touching the rest of its definition.

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": {
      "webhookId": "<webhookId>",
      "active": "<active>"
    },
    "name": "glpi_set_webhook_active"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`active`	Yes
`webhookId`	Yes	Item ID

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.5.2Oct 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: that only the active flag is mutated and the rest of the webhook definition is left untouched, which is important given the destructiveHint flag.

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 with no filler. Every clause earns its place: the action and the scope limitation are both conveyed in one pass.

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 two-parameter toggle tool with an output schema (so return values needn't be described) and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is nearly sufficient. It stops short of stating permissions or what happens if the webhook ID does not exist, which would be the only remaining gaps.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 50% (only webhookId is documented, as 'Item ID'); the boolean 'active' parameter has no schema description. The description's 'a webhook' and 'on or off' loosely map to the two parameters but add no format, default, or constraint detail, so it does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb pair (turn on/off) and a concrete resource (webhook). The clause 'without touching the rest of its definition' implicitly separates it from the full-update sibling glpi_update_webhook, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the narrow toggle path versus a full webhook update, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite (e.g. permission or existence of the webhook) guidance.

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

Deploy Server