Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@proof-holdings/mcp-server

@proof-holdings/mcp-server

Official
by ProofHoldings
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

get_webhook_stats

Read-only

Retrieve webhook delivery statistics—total deliveries, success/failure counts, and recent activity—to monitor performance and diagnose delivery issues.

Instructions

Get webhook delivery statistics including total deliveries, success/failure counts, and recent activity.

ACCESS: needs a Proof account. Set PROOF_API_KEY and restart this server, then call this tool again. start_login does NOT open this tool.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
totalYes
by_statusYes
delivery_rateYesDelivered share of all deliveries, a percentage with one decimal and a `%` sign; `0%` when there are none
recent_failures_24hYesFailed deliveries last updated in the past 24 hours

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.7.2
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "description": "Webhook delivery statistics",
+  "properties": {
+    "by_status": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "properties": {
+        "delivered": {
+          "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+          "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "failed": {
+          "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+          "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "pending": {
+          "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+          "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+          "type": "integer"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "pending",
+        "delivered",
+        "failed"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "delivery_rate": {
+      "description": "Delivered share of all deliveries, a percentage with one decimal and a `%` sign; `0%` when there are none",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "recent_failures_24h": {
+      "description": "Failed deliveries last updated in the past 24 hours",
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "total": {
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+      "type": "integer"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "total",
+    "by_status",
+    "delivery_rate",
+    "recent_failures_24h"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the rest and does add real operational context: a Proof account is required, PROOF_API_KEY must be set, the server must be restarted, and start_login will not unlock this tool. What it omits is any indication of the aggregation window ('recent activity' is undefined), rate limits, or whether stats are per-endpoint or global.

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?

The purpose sentence is front-loaded and dense with concrete return fields, and the access requirement is separated into its own labeled block. The all-caps phrasing and 'restart this server, then call this tool again' wording are slightly verbose but carry actionable setup detail rather than filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present, the description needn't spell out return values, and for a zero-parameter read tool the auth prerequisite is the main thing an agent could get wrong. The remaining gap is scope: it never says whether statistics cover all webhook endpoints or one, or over what time range.

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

Parameters5/5

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 meaning for the description to add; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The scope question (all endpoints vs. one) is instead a coverage gap, not a parameter-documentation gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get webhook delivery statistics') and enumerates the metrics returned (totals, success/failure counts, recent activity). It does not explicitly name how it differs from close siblings like list_webhook_deliveries or list_webhook_endpoints, but the aggregate-vs-listing distinction is inferable from the wording.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent can guess this is the aggregate/rollup view versus the per-delivery listing tools, but the description never says 'use this for summary metrics, use list_webhook_deliveries for individual records.' The ACCESS block is a prerequisite gate rather than when-to-use guidance.

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