memory_webhook

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

The description discloses significant behavioral traits including SSRF validation, HMAC signing, enqueueing, retry, circuit-breaker, and dead-letter mechanisms. These go beyond the annotations (which only have openWorldHint) and provide critical safety and performance context.

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 dense paragraph that efficiently covers key behaviors and actions. While no fluff, it could be slightly improved with bullet points or more structured layout for better scannability.

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 tool with 7 parameters and 4 actions, the description covers functional behavior well. However, it lacks details on return values, error handling, and authentication requirements, leaving some gaps for complete understanding.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about SSRF validation, HMAC secret signing, and event types, enhancing understanding beyond the parameter schema.

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 it manages an event bus for webhooks, listing actions (register, list, delete, dispatch) and the context of memory mutations. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on memory operations rather than webhook management.

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 mentions it is 'gated on MCP_WEBHOOKS' implying a feature flag, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like those for direct memory operations. There is no guidance on preconditions or when not to use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.