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

@yawlabs/lemonsqueezy-mcp

by YawLabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ls_list_webhooks

Read-onlyIdempotent

List webhooks, optionally filtered by store. Paginated responses include page metadata to navigate through results.

Instructions

List all webhooks, optionally filtered by store. Results are paginated — check meta.page in the response for currentPage, lastPage, and total.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "ls_list_webhooks"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
includeNoComma-separated related resources to include (e.g. 'store')
storeIdNoFilter by store ID
pageSizeNoResults per page (1-100)
pageNumberNoPage number (1-indexed)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.10.10

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, openWorld. Description adds pagination behavior ('check meta.page...'), which is valuable context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no redundant information. Every phrase adds value: purpose, optional filter, pagination guidance.

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?

Given no output schema, description adequately covers filter and pagination response shape (meta.page). Could mention webhook fields returned, but not critical for a list tool. Annotations fill gaps on safety.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all four parameters. Description adds no new parameter meaning beyond schema (storeId filter and pagination already described). Merely echoes schema.

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?

Clearly states it lists all webhooks with optional store filtering, using specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling list tools (e.g., ls_list_customers, ls_list_orders) by specifying the resource 'webhooks'.

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?

Implied usage (to retrieve webhooks, optionally filtered), but no explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives like get_webhook (single) or delete_webhook. Pagination mention helps, but no exclusion criteria.

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