Update an existing webhook's endpoint URL or event subscriptions to control where and when notifications are sent.
Update an existing webhook's endpoint URL and/or subscriptions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| webhookId | Yes | The webhook ID to update | |
| endpointUrl | No | New HTTPS URL to send webhook events to | |
| subscriptions | No | Updated list of event types to subscribe to (at least one) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.17.1Input schema / properties / subscriptions / items / enumAdded value: +[
+ "exitNodeIPForwardingNotEnabled",
+ "nodeApproved",
+ "nodeCreated",
+ "nodeDeleted",
+ "nodeKeyExpired",
+ "nodeKeyExpiringInOneDay",
+ "nodeNeedsApproval",
+ "nodeNeedsSignature",
+ "nodeSigned",
+ "policyUpdate",
+ "subnetIPForwardingNotEnabled",
+ "userApproved",
+ "userCreated",
+ "userDeleted",
+ "userNeedsApproval",
+ "userRestored",
+ "userRoleUpdated",
+ "userSuspended"
+]v0.13.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the operation as not read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate those facts. It adds useful behavioral context by indicating that either endpoint URL or subscriptions, or both, can be updated in a single call, clarifying partial-update semantics.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. Every word contributes to identifying the action, target, and scope.
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 update operation with fully documented parameters and annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, this is nearly complete. A minor gap is the absence of any indication of the response shape or whether providing subscriptions replaces the entire subscription list rather than merging with existing ones.
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 clear descriptions for webhookId, endpointUrl, and subscriptions. The tool description's 'endpoint URL and/or subscriptions' mirrors the schema's optionality without adding deeper parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb ('Update'), a clear resource ('existing webhook'), and the exact mutable fields ('endpoint URL and/or subscriptions'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like create_webhook, delete_webhook, rotate_webhook_secret, and test_webhook without needing to inspect schemas.
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 phrase 'existing webhook' implies the tool is for modifying a webhook that already exists, providing some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over create_webhook or rotate_webhook_secret, nor does it mention how to obtain a webhook ID (e.g., via list_webhooks or get_webhook).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.