Skip to main content
Glama
beel-es

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

beel_test_webhook_subscription

Idempotent

Verify webhook endpoints are reachable and handle signed deliveries by triggering a synthetic test payload outside the normal queue.

Instructions

Sends a synthetic payload to the subscription's URL immediately, outside the normal delivery queue. Use it to verify that your endpoint is reachable and handles deliveries correctly before you rely on real events.

  • Payload: carries "test": true and synthetic data, and is signed like any other delivery, so it also exercises your signature check.

  • Retries: none. A failed test is not retried and does not appear in the delivery history.

  • Idempotency-Key: repeating the call with the same key returns the cached result without sending the test payload again.

  • Result: read delivery_success; a delivery your endpoint rejected is still a successful test run, not an error.

Endpoint: POST /v1/accounts/{account_id}/webhooks/{webhook_id}/test

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.
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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses retry behavior ('Retries: none'), exclusion from delivery history, idempotency-key caching behavior, and the subtle semantics of delivery_success where a rejected endpoint is still a successful test run. This is rich behavioral context an agent could not infer from annotations alone.

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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded: a one-sentence summary, followed by concise bullet points covering payload, retries, idempotency, and result interpretation. Every sentence earns its place and the endpoint is included for convenience.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Without an output schema, the description properly explains what the agent should read from the result ('delivery_success') and how to interpret edge cases. Combined with the fully documented parameters, this is complete enough for correct invocation and expectation-setting.

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 a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description's Idempotency-Key bullet reinforces the schema's idempotency explanation but does not add meaning beyond it. The parameter-specific details are already fully carried by the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'sends a synthetic payload to the subscription's URL immediately.' It clearly distinguishes the operation from normal delivery and from sibling tools like retry_webhook_delivery by framing it as an out-of-band verification action.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'verify that your endpoint is reachable and handles deliveries correctly before you rely on real events.' It also explains the payload is signed so the signature check is exercised. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for retrying failed real deliveries, but the usage context is clear.

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