@ethioviral/mcp

Get your webhook endpoint

get_webhook

Retrieve your configured webhook endpoint for order events and view its recent delivery health. Returns null if no webhook is set up.

Instructions

The endpoint we POST order events to, with its recent delivery health. Returns null if none is configured.

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": "get_webhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Sep 16, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns null when no webhook is configured and mentions recent delivery health, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or describe error handling or authentication requirements, though these may be less critical for a getter.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the key purpose and includes the important null return behavior. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 parameterless getter with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it states what the tool returns and the special null case. Minor omissions like explicit read-only confirmation are not critical, but given no annotations, a slightly richer description could mention that it only reads configuration. Still, it is adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific information because there are none to describe, meriting the baseline score of 4.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves the webhook endpoint and its recent delivery health, and returns null if none is configured. It specifies the resource (webhook endpoint) and the action (get), making it distinguishable from sibling write/delete/test operations, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_webhook, delete_webhook, or test_webhook. The description implies it is the getter, but does not state conditions, prerequisites, or when one would choose it over other webhook-related tools, leaving the agent to infer from the name.

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