tailscale_get_webhookRetrieve details for a specific Tailscale webhook by its webhook ID. Use it to inspect configuration, status, or payload settings for webhook integrations.
Get details for a specific webhook.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| webhookId | Yes | The webhook ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.13.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no return format, no note on error behavior for a missing/invalid ID, and no pagination or auth context. With annotations carrying the load it is not a 1, but the description contributes no behavioral value.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though it borders on under-specification for a tool an agent must route correctly among many webhook siblings.
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 single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the essentials are present. But with no output schema, the description does not tell the agent what details are returned, which is a modest gap.
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% with a single parameter, so the schema already explains webhookId as 'The webhook ID'. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing guidance for the ID beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline 3 case.
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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('webhook') with a clear singular scope, which distinguishes it from the plural list_webhooks sibling. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast against related siblings like tailscale_list_webhooks or tailscale_test_webhook.
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?
Usage is only implied: the singular 'specific webhook' plus the required webhookId suggests retrieval by identifier. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus list_webhooks or get_webhook-adjacent tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.