Retry failed webhook deliveries by creating a new attempt with the same payload to the configured endpoint.
Retry a failed webhook delivery. Creates a new delivery attempt with the same payload to the configured endpoint.
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.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Webhook delivery ID to retry |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds real value beyond them by explaining that a brand-new attempt is created reusing the same payload against the configured endpoint, and by flagging the account/auth requirement and restart step needed to use it.
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?
Front-loads the core action in the first sentence, then the mechanism, then a clearly delineated ACCESS block. Every sentence earns its place; only the mechanism line is slightly redundant with the headline.
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 single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the resulting side effect, and the authentication prerequisite. Return value details are correctly omitted, though noting what a retry returns (or that it can fail again) would round it out.
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% for the single 'id' parameter, so the schema already documents it ('Webhook delivery ID to retry'). The description implies the ID references the failed delivery but adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.
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 ('Retry a failed webhook delivery') and goes further to explain the mechanism: it 'Creates a new delivery attempt with the same payload to the configured endpoint.' This clearly separates it from siblings like get_webhook_delivery and list_webhook_deliveries, which only inspect deliveries.
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 gives clear context: only failed deliveries are retried, and it discloses a prerequisite (a Proof account with PROOF_API_KEY set). It does not, however, point the agent to a sibling for locating a failed delivery ID or state exclusions, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.