mailbox-mcp

list_webhook_endpoints

Read-onlyIdempotent

List configured webhook endpoints to inspect their names, URLs, subscribed events, keyword rules, and status without exposing secrets.

Instructions

List the member's webhooks (name, URL, events, keyword rules, status), without secrets. Legacy agent callback settings are separate. Requires webhook.manage. Uses the same bounded control plane and tenant/agent/Live-Sandbox authorization as /api/v1/webhooks/endpoints. Reuse the exact idempotency_key and input after an uncertain mutation. Webhook docs: https://mailbox.bot/docs/webhooks.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.4Oct 26, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / result / properties / endpoints / items / properties / event_types / items / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "inbound.received",
-  "inbound.action.requested",
-  "inbound.action.completed",
-  "inbound.pages_ready",
-  "inbound.keywords_matched"
-]New value: +[
+  "inbound.received",
+  "inbound.action.requested",
+  "inbound.action.completed",
+  "inbound.pages_ready",
+  "inbound.keywords_matched",
+  "mail.pending_approval",
+  "mail.submitted",
+  "mail.ready",
+  "mail.mailed",
+  "mail.delivered",
+  "mail.failed",
+  "mail.cancelled",
+  "batch.submitted",
+  "batch.completed",
+  "batch.partially_completed",
+  "batch.failed",
+  "batch.cancelled"
+]

changedOutput schema / properties / result / properties / endpoints / items / properties / event_types / maxItems
```
Previous value: -16New value: +32
```

Addedv1.0.3Oct 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: returned data excludes secrets, webhook.manage is required, and the same tenant/agent/Live-Sandbox authorization model applies. The idempotency-key sentence is somewhat irrelevant for a zero-parameter read-only list, but does not contradict the annotations.

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?

The core purpose is front-loaded and useful, but the sentence about reusing an idempotency_key after an uncertain mutation does not clearly apply to a read-only, parameterless list tool. That sentence feels like boilerplate and weakens an otherwise reasonably structured description.

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?

The description is complete enough for a zero-parameter list tool with an output schema and rich annotations. It covers permissions, secret exclusion, legacy separation, and authorization scope. Only minor ambiguity remains around pagination or result bounds, but that is largely covered by the output schema and annotations.

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?

There are zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and no parameter-level meaning is missing.

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 states a specific verb and resource: listing the member's webhooks, and enumerates the returned fields (name, URL, events, keyword rules, status). It also distinguishes this from legacy agent callback settings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling list_webhook_deliveries tool.

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?

It gives useful context: requires webhook.manage and legacy agent callback settings are separate. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_webhook_deliveries, making the usage guidance implied rather than complete.

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

Deploy Server