sendook-mcp

sendook_test_webhook

Read-onlyIdempotent

Send a test event to a webhook endpoint to verify its configuration and response.

Instructions

Send a test event to a webhook endpoint.

Verifies that your endpoint is correctly configured and responding. A test payload will be sent to the webhook URL.

Args: params: WebhookIdInput containing: - webhook_id: Webhook to test

Returns: str: Test result indicating success or failure

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": {
      "params": "<params>"
    },
    "name": "sendook_test_webhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, providing a clear safety profile. The description adds that a test payload is sent and a result is returned, but does not contradict or significantly extend behavioral info.

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 description is relatively concise with a clear first sentence. The Args and Returns sections add some redundancy with the schema but are structured well. Could be slightly more front-loaded.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers purpose and basic behavior but lacks detail about the test result string (e.g., possible values), whether the test is asynchronous, or if the webhook must be owned by the user. Given the output schema exists but is not shown, completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema fully describes the 'webhook_id' parameter with a description and title. The description repeats the schema without adding new information. With high schema coverage, baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool sends a test event to a webhook endpoint to verify configuration, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create or get webhooks. The verb 'test' and resource 'webhook' are specific.

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?

The description implies usage for verifying webhook configuration but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server