Podio MCP Server

List Webhooks

podio_list_webhooks

List all webhooks for a Podio app or space by ref type and ID, returning each webhook's ID, active status, event type, and URL.

Instructions

Lists all webhooks registered on a Podio app or space. Returns each webhook's ID, status (active/inactive), event type, and URL.

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": {
      "ref_type": "<ref_type>",
      "ref_id": "<ref_id>"
    },
    "name": "podio_list_webhooks"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ref_id`	Yes	App ID or Space ID
`ref_type`	Yes	Object type: 'app' or 'space'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden itself. It discloses the return fields (ID, status, event type, URL), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about permissions, pagination, rate limits, or ordering for a list operation.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first states what is listed and where, the second states what comes back. Nothing is wasted and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with fully covered schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient, especially since it summarizes the return shape. Only pagination and result-size behavior are left unspecified.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with ref_id and the ref_type enum already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the target is an app or space but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Lists all webhooks registered on a Podio app or space') and states the scoping entities. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling create_webhook and delete_webhook tools, though it never names them explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of alternatives. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the inspection path for existing webhooks rather than creation or deletion.

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