lulu-print-mcp

Send test webhook

test_webhook

Sends a sample event for a specified webhook topic to an active webhook URL, letting you verify webhook delivery and handling.

Instructions

Ask Lulu to send a sample event of the given topic to a webhook's URL. The webhook must be active.

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>",
      "topic": "<topic>"
    },
    "name": "test_webhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Webhook id.
`topic`	Yes	Topic of the sample event.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that an outbound sample event is fired at the configured URL and that the webhook must be active. It says nothing about whether the sample counts as a real submission, whether it can be repeated, or any rate limits.

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 short sentences with zero filler: the action is front-loaded and the precondition follows. Nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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 simple two-parameter test tool with fully documented inputs, the description covers what it does and the activation requirement. The one gap is return behavior — with no output schema, an agent cannot tell whether a submission id or delivery result comes back.

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%, with both 'id' and 'topic' documented and the topic enum supplied, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description mentions the topic and the webhook URL but adds no format or selection guidance beyond that, which matches the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it asks Lulu to send a sample event of a given topic to a webhook's URL. That clearly separates it from create_webhook, delete_webhook, and get_webhook, which do not send events. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 states one real precondition — 'The webhook must be active' — which is a genuine when-it-works constraint. However, it never says when an agent should call this rather than, say, list_webhook_submissions to check real deliveries, so the usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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