create_webhookRegister an HTTPS endpoint to receive SavvyCal event notifications, including bookings and cancellations, so your system can react to scheduling changes.
Register a URL that receives SavvyCal event notifications (bookings, cancellations, etc).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | HTTPS endpoint URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what the registered URL will receive, but omits behavior an agent would want: whether a signing secret is returned, whether re-registering the same URL is idempotent, and whether the endpoint is verified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action, with zero filler. The parenthetical event examples earn their place by clarifying the trigger domain.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple one-parameter tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema to explain, so the description is nearly sufficient. The only meaningful gap is what happens after registration (secret, verification, duplicates), which an agent might reasonably expect for a webhook-creation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('HTTPS endpoint URL'), so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description restates the URL's purpose but adds no format, constraint, or validation detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline of 3 for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a specific verb ('Register') and resource ('a URL that receives SavvyCal event notifications') and even scopes the payload types (bookings, cancellations). It implicitly separates itself from list_webhooks and delete_webhook by describing creation, but never names those siblings explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this when you want outbound event notifications, and the examples ('bookings, cancellations') hint at triggering scenarios. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites (e.g. auth scope), and no mention of the sibling tools that read or remove webhooks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.