Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SavvyCal MCP Server

SavvyCal MCP Server

by OfirOhan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

List webhooks

list_webhooks
Read-only

Retrieve all configured webhooks for SavvyCal to review endpoints, verify integrations, or troubleshoot event notifications.

Instructions

List configured webhooks.

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_webhooks"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and open-world profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond that: no pagination behavior, no scoping (user vs workspace), no volume or rate context.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single short sentence with no waste. It is front-loaded, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than true concision.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a zero-argument read-only list tool with annotations covering safety, the minimum is met, but with no output schema the description should say something about what is returned (e.g. all webhooks, scope, pagination). It leaves useful context on the table.

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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden; the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not mislead about inputs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States the verb (list) and resource (webhooks) plainly, so an agent knows it retrieves configured webhooks. However, it is essentially a restatement of the name/title and does not distinguish it beyond the obvious from create_webhook/delete_webhook siblings, nor does it describe scope.

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 versus siblings, and no stated prerequisites or scope. The agent must infer that this is the read counterpart to create_webhook/delete_webhook purely from the name.

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