Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Hub

MCP Hub

by airano-ir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Gitea: Get webhook

gitea_get_webhook
Read-only

Retrieve details for a specific Gitea webhook using its site, owner, repository, and webhook ID.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Get details of a specific webhook.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "site": "<site>",
      "owner": "<owner>",
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "webhook_id": "<webhook_id>"
    },
    "name": "gitea_get_webhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYes
siteYes
ownerYes
webhook_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.14.0
  2. Removedv3.13.1
  3. First observedv3.4.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds nothing beyond that -- no indication of what 'details' includes, whether the caller needs scoping permissions on site/owner/repo, or how errors surface for a missing webhook_id.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with no padding, so it is concise. But it is under-specified rather than economical: the '[UNIFIED]' token consumes space without adding meaning, and no key information is front-loaded because none exists.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With four mandatory undocumented parameters, no output schema, and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description should carry more weight. An agent knows roughly what the tool does but not which identifiers are needed or what it returns.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description compensates only implicitly: 'specific webhook' hints at webhook_id, but site, owner, and repo are completely unexplained in both schema and description. For a tool requiring all four identifiers, that is a substantial gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a clear verb+resource ('Get details of a specific webhook'), which an agent can distinguish from the create/delete/update/test webhook siblings by name. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is unexplained jargon that adds no distinguishing value.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to pick a different sibling. The agent must infer that this is the read path versus create/update/delete from the tool name alone.

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