Creates a webhook that posts selected store events to an HTTPS URL and returns the signing secret once for delivery verification.
Cria um webhook para receber notificações de eventos da loja em uma URL HTTPS. O signing secret é exibido apenas uma vez na resposta.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | URL HTTPS que receberá os eventos (POST) | |
| name | No | Nome do webhook | |
| events | Yes | Eventos assinados (use * para todos) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does add genuinely useful behavioral detail: the signing secret is returned only once in the response, which is operationally important. But it omits what the response otherwise contains, whether creation is idempotent for duplicate URLs, and any permission requirements.
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?
Two short sentences, zero waste, with the core purpose front-loaded and the one-time-secret caveat appended where it is easy to catch.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials (what it creates, the HTTPS requirement, the one-time secret) but leaves the returned payload structure and failure conditions undisclosed, so an agent still lacks a complete picture before calling it.
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 coverage is 100%, so url, name, and events are already documented, including the '*' wildcard for all events. The description only reinforces the HTTPS constraint on url and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Cria um webhook') plus the constraint that the receiving URL must be HTTPS. An agent can immediately tell this is the creation tool for webhooks, distinct from novacrm_list_webhooks, even though the sibling is not named.
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 by the verb 'create' — there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus novacrm_list_webhooks, no prerequisites, and no guidance on prerequisites such as an existing store or required authorization. The HTTPS requirement is a constraint, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.