List npm webhooks, optionally filtered by package name, with secrets redacted for safe inspection.
List webhooks. Optionally filter by package name. Secrets are redacted from responses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset | |
| package | No | Filter by package name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.12.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable context by stating that 'Secrets are redacted from responses,' which is a non-obvious behavioral detail that helps the agent set expectations. It also clarifies the optional package filter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with two short sentences that front-load the core purpose, then the optional filter, then the key behavioral note about redaction. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation with strong annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, filtering capability, and an important output detail (secret redaction). It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it does not describe pagination behavior explicitly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for all three parameters (limit, offset, package), so the schema is sufficient. The description reinforces the package filter but does not add extra semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('List webhooks') and resource (webhooks), with a specific optional filter by package name. This distinguishes it from sibling hook tools like npm_hook_get, npm_hook_add, npm_hook_update, and npm_hook_remove, which have different actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for listing webhooks and mentions an optional filter, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like npm_hook_get for retrieving a single hook. The usage context is clear, but there are no explicit exclusions or 'when not to use' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.