@ethioviral/mcp

Send a signed test delivery

test_webhook

Verify webhook signature handling by sending a signed test event to your endpoint and inspecting the response before relying on it.

Instructions

Posts a signed test event to the configured endpoint and reports what came back, so a partner can verify their signature check before relying on it.

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": "test_webhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Sep 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently states that a signed test event is posted to the configured endpoint and that the response is returned. It does not dwell on side effects or requirements, but the posted-test-event behavior is clearly conveyed.

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 one focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and target, then gives the purpose, making it quick for an agent to parse.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the action, target, returned information, and purpose. It could be slightly more explicit about prerequisites or the exact response shape, but those are minor gaps for such a simple tool.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to explain. The zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Posts'), a specific resource ('a signed test event'), a target ('configured endpoint'), and a clear outcome ('reports what came back'). It clearly separates this tool from webhook configuration siblings like set_webhook and delete_webhook.

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?

The phrase 'so a partner can verify their signature check before relying on it' provides clear usage context and implies this is a verification step after configuration. It does not name alternatives or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is still clear.

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