sparkpost-mcp

create_webhook

Creates a webhook to receive real-time email event notifications (e.g., bounces, clicks) at a specified target URL.

Instructions

Create a webhook (name, target URL, events)

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "target": "<target>",
      "events": "<events>"
    },
    "name": "create_webhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`name`	Yes
`events`	Yes
`target`	Yes
`auth_type`	No	none

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Create' implying mutation, but fails to mention any side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or confirmation of success. The description is insufficient for transparency.

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 description is very short and front-loaded with key info. However, it sacrifices necessary detail; it's concise but not optimally structured for agent use.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description fails to provide complete context. It doesn't mention what the tool returns (e.g., webhook ID), error handling, or confirmation. This is severely incomplete.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The description adds no meaning beyond listing parameter names in parentheses. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent gets no context on the events enum, target format, or optional auth_type. This is inadequate.

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 states the verb 'Create' and resource 'webhook' along with key parameters (name, target URL, events). This clearly identifies the tool's function but doesn't differentiate it from sibling tools like delete_webhook or list_webhooks.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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