lulu-print-mcp

Update webhook

update_webhook

Idempotent

Change a webhook's URL or subscribed topics, or enable and disable it to control event delivery.

Instructions

Change a webhook's URL or topics, or switch it on or off.

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": "update_webhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Webhook id.
`url`	No	New URL that will receive the event POSTs.
`topics`	No
`is_active`	No	false pauses the webhook, true resumes it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds nothing beyond them: it does not say whether omitted fields (url, topics, is_active) are left unchanged or reset, which is the critical behavioral question for a partial-update mutation. It also says nothing about what happens to in-flight deliveries when is_active is toggled to false.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the resource and mutable fields are front-loaded. It could be slightly better structured by explicitly separating the partial-update rule, but there is no wasted wording.

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?

Missing key behavioral detail: whether this is a partial or full replacement update, and what is returned. With no output schema and 75% param coverage, the description should state the update semantics. Otherwise the definition is adequate for a 4-parameter mutation with informative annotations.

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 coverage is 75%, so the schema itself documents id, url, and is_active; the description only restates those fields in prose ('URL or topics... on or off') without adding format, validation, or default semantics. The topics parameter has no description in the schema and is only vaguely gestured at in the description, so no extra meaning is supplied there either.

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 gives a specific verb (Change) and resource (a webhook), and enumerates the mutable facets: URL, topics, and on/off state. That cleanly separates it from create_webhook, delete_webhook, get_webhook, and test_webhook without needing their schemas.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Change a webhook's...' signals this operates on an existing webhook, so an agent can infer it should be chosen over create_webhook or delete_webhook. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention that the webhook must already exist, and no pointer to test_webhook for verification.

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