NexTool MCP for GLPI

Update webhook

glpi_update_webhook

DestructiveIdempotent

Update a GLPI webhook definition by ID to change its endpoint, events, or active status.

Instructions

Update a webhook definition by ID.

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>",
      "input": "<input>"
    },
    "name": "glpi_update_webhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`input`	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

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the name: it does not say what 'update' destroys or overwrites, whether the input is a partial or full replacement, or what permissions are required — for a destructive mutation this is a real gap.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, which is good, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency. One clause is not enough for a destructive, free-form-payload mutation tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety traits. But with a nested, undocumented 'input' object and no statement of what can be changed or what an update replaces, the description is too thin for the tool's complexity.

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 only 50% and the uncovered parameter is the critical one: 'input' is a free-form nested object with additionalProperties {} and no documentation anywhere. The description's 'by ID' only partially reinforces webhookId's schema text ('Item ID') and says nothing about the shape or fields of the update payload.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Update a webhook definition') and states it operates by ID, which is clearer than a bare 'Update webhook'. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like glpi_set_webhook_active or glpi_create_webhook, leaving the agent to infer the scope from the name alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. Critically, the description never explains how this differs from glpi_set_webhook_active, which is the closest sibling and also mutates a webhook.

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

Deploy Server