lulu-print-mcp

List webhook deliveries

list_webhook_submissions

Read-only

Retrieve past webhook deliveries with success or failure status, and filter by webhook, date, or response code to troubleshoot failed print-on-demand notifications.

Instructions

List past webhook deliveries and whether each one succeeded, for troubleshooting.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_webhook_submissions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Result page, default 1.
`page_size`	No	Results per page, default 100.
`is_success`	No	true for successful deliveries only, false for failed.
`webhook_id`	No	Only deliveries for this webhook.
`created_after`	No	Only items created after this ISO 8601 date or timestamp (UTC), e.g. '2026-11-09' or '2026-11-09T09:30:08Z'.
`response_code`	No	Filter by the HTTP status your URL returned.
`created_before`	No	Only items created before this ISO 8601 date or timestamp (UTC), e.g. '2026-11-09' or '2026-11-09T09:30:08Z'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results include per-delivery success state, which is genuine behavioral context, but it says nothing about pagination limits, retention window, or how much history is returned for a read that could span many records.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the resource and states the differentiating detail (success status) before the purpose. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what a delivery record contains; it only mentions success status and omits response code, timestamps, payload reference, and pagination shape. Adequate for a simple read tool but leaves an agent guessing at the return structure.

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?

All seven parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including the is_success, webhook_id, response_code, and date-range filters. The description adds no extra meaning about how these filters combine or which are most useful for troubleshooting, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('past webhook deliveries') and adds that each entry carries success/failure status. That distinguishes it from list_webhooks, which manages webhook configurations rather than delivery history, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

The phrase 'for troubleshooting' implies the use case (investigating failed deliveries) but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and names no alternative such as get_webhook or test_webhook. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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