Skip to main content
Glama
beel-es

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

beel_retry_webhook_delivery

Idempotent

Triggers an immediate replay of a chosen webhook delivery using its saved original payload--not current data--while appending a separate continuation log entry.

Instructions

Re-sends the original payload of a delivery immediately.

  • Payload: the one captured when the event happened, not a fresh snapshot, so changes made to the entity since then are not reflected.

  • History: the outcome is recorded as a new entry and the original entry is kept as it was. attempt_number continues the same sequence, so it can exceed the number of automatic attempts.

Endpoint: POST /v1/accounts/{account_id}/webhooks/{webhook_id}/deliveries/{delivery_id}/retry

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
account_idYesYour own account, or an account you provisioned. It — not the credential, and not the `BeeL-Active-Company` header — decides which account the operation acts on. An account you do not reach answers `403`, and so does an account that does not exist, so the existence of somebody else's account is never disclosed.
webhook_idYesSubscription of the account in the path. A subscription of another account answers `404`, the same as one that does not exist: under the account resolved from `{account_id}` it simply is not there.
delivery_idYesDelivery attempt of that subscription to replay.
idempotency_keyNoOptional idempotency key for this operation. Omit it and one is derived from the request itself, which makes a blind retry safe but also collapses a SECOND, deliberately identical operation into the first for 24 hours. Set it — to an order id, or anything unique per intended operation — whenever you mean to create something that may look identical to what you just created.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.5.0
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Governs beyond the annotations: it discloses that the replayed payload is the original captured snapshot (entity changes since then are not reflected), that the outcome is stored as a new history entry while the original is preserved, and that attempt_number continues the same sequence past automatic attempts. Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, but these semantics are genuinely additive.

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 tightly scoped bullets following a front-loaded summary sentence, plus the endpoint. Every line carries distinct meaning (payload provenance, history behavior) with no padding.

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 mutating, non-destructive, idempotent action with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description supplies the essential behavioral context (payload snapshot, history entry, attempt numbering). It stops short of routing guidance against the similar test/retry siblings.

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%, so the schema already documents account_id, webhook_id, delivery_id and the idempotency_key nuance in detail. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond the schema, 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?

The opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Re-sends the original payload of a delivery immediately'), which is unambiguous. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby siblings beel_test_webhook_subscription or beel_retry_payment_event, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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: the tool replays an existing delivery, so it is for failed/stuck deliveries, but the description never states when to prefer it over beel_test_webhook_subscription or how to obtain a delivery_id. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools