Get the full configuration of a specific webhook by providing its ID. Use this read-only endpoint to inspect or verify webhook details without making changes.
Get webhook
HTTP: GET /v1/webhooks/:id Category: Webhooks Required scopes: webhooks:read Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Path parameter: id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the required 'webhooks:read' scope and restates read-only behavior, but it does not disclose return shape, error behavior, or whether the webhook object is returned in full.
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?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the core action 'Get webhook'. Every subsequent line provides a distinct fact: HTTP method/path, category, required scopes, and read-only nature, with no unnecessary filler.
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?
For a simple one-parameter GET with rich annotations, the definition is largely complete: it includes the endpoint, the id parameter, the required scope, and the read-only safety signal. It does not describe the response payload or failure cases, but that is a minor gap for such a straightforward retrieval operation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is already documented as a path parameter. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific operation ('Get webhook') and the HTTP path GET /v1/webhooks/:id, making it clear this fetches an individual webhook resource. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling endpoints like the webhook list or test tools, so differentiation relies mostly on the :id path parameter.
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?
The description provides the HTTP method, category, and required scopes but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. An agent must infer from the singular ':id' path that this endpoint is for retrieving one existing webhook rather than listing, creating, updating, or testing webhooks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.