Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@apinator/mcp

@apinator/mcp

Official
by apinator-io
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Edit webhook

edit_webhook
Idempotent

Update a webhook endpoint's URL, event subscriptions, or enabled state to change where events are sent or pause deliveries. Send only the fields that change; the signing secret stays the same.

Instructions

Change a webhook endpoint's URL, events, or enabled state. Pass only what changes. The signing secret stays the same.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoReceiver URL, e.g. https://myapp.example.com/api/apinator-webhook. It must be reachable from the internet: private and loopback addresses (localhost, 10.x, 192.168.x) are refused. For a dev server on this machine, expose it with a tunnel (cloudflared, ngrok) and use the tunnel URL.
eventsNoReplaces the event list.
enabledNofalse pauses deliveries without deleting the endpoint.
webhook_idYesWebhook id, from list_webhooks or add_webhook.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.1.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds useful behavior beyond the annotations by clarifying that callers should send only changed fields and that the signing secret remains unchanged.

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?

The description is three short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the most important constraints are stated immediately.

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?

For a four-parameter mutation tool with full schema descriptions and strong annotations, the description covers the operation, partial-update behavior, and signing-secret side effect. It could optionally mention return behavior or auth expectations, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter details are already well documented. The description still adds meaningful edit semantics with 'Pass only what changes,' which goes beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Change a webhook endpoint's URL, events, or enabled state.' It clearly identifies the mutable fields and distinguishes this operation from sibling webhook tools such as add, delete, list, and test.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

'Pass only what changes' gives explicit partial-update guidance, which is the key usage rule for this tool. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the edit/change framing makes the intended context clear.

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