Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@yawlabs/lemonsqueezy-mcp

@yawlabs/lemonsqueezy-mcp

by YawLabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ls_get_webhook

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a specific LemonSqueezy webhook by ID to view its URL, subscribed events, and last sent timestamp.

Instructions

Get a specific webhook by ID, including URL, events, and last sent timestamp.

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": {
      "webhookId": "<webhookId>"
    },
    "name": "ls_get_webhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
includeNoComma-separated related resources to include (e.g. 'store')
webhookIdYesThe webhook ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.10.10

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by detailing the output fields (URL, events, last sent timestamp), giving the agent concrete expectations of the response content.

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?

Single sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the action and key output details. No extraneous information.

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 getter with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and output fields. It could mention that additional fields may exist, but given the simplicity, it is sufficiently complete.

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% (both parameters documented). The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when high coverage.

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 'Get a specific webhook by ID,' identifying the verb and resource. It also specifies the returned fields (URL, events, last sent timestamp), which distinguishes it from list or update tools.

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 implicitly indicates use when a single webhook's details are needed. However, it does not explicitly specify when not to use or alternative tools like ls_list_webhooks for bulk retrieval. The context is clear but lacks direct exclusions.

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