lulu-print-mcp

Get webhook

get_webhook

Read-only

Retrieve a single Lulu Print webhook subscription by its ID to inspect its configuration and status.

Instructions

Get one webhook subscription.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_webhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Webhook id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 11, 2026

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 and openWorldHint=true, so the description carries a lighter burden, but it adds nothing on top: no mention of what happens if the id does not exist, whether related submissions are included, or any rate/permission context. It is a bare restatement of the operation.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency. There is nothing extraneous, yet nothing that earns more than the minimum.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple single-resource read tool with one fully documented parameter, this is close to adequate. However, with no output schema, the description could have said what a webhook subscription record contains or how a missing id is reported, and it does neither.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("Webhook id." plus a pattern constraint), so the schema does the documentation work. The description adds no extra meaning about the id format or where to obtain it, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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

Purpose3/5

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

"Get one webhook subscription" states a verb and resource, but it is essentially a restatement of the name/title with the word "one" added. It gives no signal distinguishing it from the sibling list_webhooks beyond the implicit singular/plural difference, which the agent must infer.

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: nothing says to call this when you already have a webhook id, nor that list_webhooks should be used to discover ids first. The agent must figure out the retrieval pattern from sibling names alone.

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