patreonmcp

update_webhook

DestructiveIdempotent

Modify a Patreon webhook's URI, triggers, or paused state. Unpausing can redeliver queued patron events; changing the URI requires the host to be allowed.

Instructions

Update a webhook's URI, triggers, or paused state.

Changing the URI requires PATREON_WEBHOOK_ALLOWED_HOSTS to permit the host. Unpausing can redeliver queued patron events.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`uri`	No	New HTTPS endpoint.
`paused`	No	Set false to resume and redeliver queued events after failures; true to pause.
`triggers`	No	Replacement trigger list.
`webhook_id`	Yes	Webhook ID.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`uri`	No
`paused`	No
`secret`	No
`triggers`	No
`last_attempted_at`	No
`num_consecutive_times_failed`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real context the annotations don't: an external configuration dependency (PATREON_WEBHOOK_ALLOWED_HOSTS) gating URI changes, and the side effect that unpausing redelivers queued patron events. It stops short of stating irreversibility or how partial updates behave.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the operation scope, then the two non-obvious caveats. No filler or repetition.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the operation scope plus the two behavioral gotchas that matter most (host allowlist, event redelivery). Only minor gaps remain around partial-update semantics and reversibility of a URI change.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema (including the paused redeliver semantics). The description only restates the parameter names, adding no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema baseline.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb (update) and resource (webhook) plus the exact mutable fields (URI, triggers, paused state). Combined with the sibling list (create_webhook, delete_webhook, list_webhooks), an agent can immediately tell this is the mutation path for an existing webhook.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the 'update' verb against the create/delete/list siblings, and the host-allowlist prerequisite for URI changes is a useful precondition. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this over alternatives (e.g. delete + recreate) or that at least one field should change.

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