Skip to main content
Glama
Prototypr

Feedbagel MCP Server

Official
by Prototypr

create_webhook

Subscribe to receive real-time notifications by creating a webhook. Includes a one-time secret for HMAC validation.

Instructions

[write] Create a webhook subscription. The response includes webhook_secret ONCE; the bot must persist it for HMAC validation. Counts against the subscription cap.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
webhook_urlYes
subscriber_nameNo
notesNo

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for create_webhook – sends a POST request to /api/v1/webhooks with the input payload (webhook_url, optional subscriber_name, optional notes).
    handler: (input, c) => c.request("POST", "/api/v1/webhooks", input),
  • Input schema for create_webhook using Zod: requires webhook_url (valid URL string), and optionally accepts subscriber_name (max 120 chars) and notes (max 500 chars).
    inputSchema: z.object({
      webhook_url: z.string().url(),
      subscriber_name: z.string().max(120).optional(),
      notes: z.string().max(500).optional(),
    }),
  • src/tools.ts:60-63 (registration)
    Registration of the create_webhook tool in the TOOLS array with name, description, and write scope. Registered alongside all other tools in src/tools.ts.
    name: "create_webhook",
    description:
      "Create a webhook subscription. The response includes webhook_secret ONCE; the bot must persist it for HMAC validation. Counts against the subscription cap.",
    scope: "write",
  • src/index.ts:45-45 (registration)
    The MCP CallToolRequestSchema handler looks up the tool by name in the TOOLS array and dispatches to its handler – this is how create_webhook gets invoked at runtime.
    server.setRequestHandler(CallToolRequestSchema, async (req) => {
  • The FeedbagelClient.request() helper method that create_webhook's handler calls – sends an HTTP POST with JSON body to the feedbagel API.
    async request(
      method: string,
      path: string,
      body?: unknown,
    ): Promise<unknown> {
      const res = await fetch(`${this.baseUrl}${path}`, {
        method,
        headers: {
          Authorization: `Bearer ${this.apiKey}`,
          ...(body !== undefined ? { "content-type": "application/json" } : {}),
        },
        body: body !== undefined ? JSON.stringify(body) : undefined,
      });
    
      const text = await res.text();
      let json: unknown = undefined;
      try {
        json = text ? JSON.parse(text) : undefined;
      } catch {
        json = { raw: text };
      }
    
      if (!res.ok) {
        // Surface 429 and 4xx details verbatim so the agent sees the cap info.
        const err: Error & { status?: number; body?: unknown } = new Error(
          `HTTP ${res.status} ${res.statusText}`,
        );
        err.status = res.status;
        err.body = json;
        throw err;
      }
      return json;
    }
Behavior3/5

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

Without annotations, the description adds key behavioral context: the response includes a one-time webhook_secret that must be persisted for HMAC validation, and it counts against a cap. However, it omits details like idempotency, duplicate handling, or auth requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is brief (two sentences), front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations and return value details beyond the secret, which are needed for effective use.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The schema has 0% coverage with no descriptions, and the description does not explain the purpose or usage of any of the three parameters (webhook_url, subscriber_name, notes), leaving the agent to infer from names and constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Create a webhook subscription' with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('webhook subscription'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools (attach, delete, detach, pause, resume, list) by focusing on creation.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description notes that the tool 'Counts against the subscription cap,' which implies usage constraints, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-to-avoid guidance or comparisons with alternatives.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Prototypr/feedbagel-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server