GetV1InstancesWebhookEndpointsRetrieves the webhook endpoints configured for a given instance ID, helping you inspect callback URLs used for payment event notifications.
Retrieve Webhooks
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| instance_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.9.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of pagination, result ordering, filters, or whether an empty list is possible, which is the kind of context a list tool should supply.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two words with no fluff, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — there is no front-loaded scoping, no statement of return contents, and nothing that earns placement in an agent's selection reasoning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple instance-scoped list tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description still leaves the agent without the scope, the return shape (array of endpoint objects), or the sibling routing needed to call it confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the single required parameter (instance_id, fixed 15-char string) is undocumented in both schema and description. The description should at least clarify that the call is scoped to one instance and what format that identifier takes.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
"Retrieve Webhooks" gives a generic verb (Retrieve) and a loosely-named resource that doesn't precisely match the tool's actual scope (webhook endpoints for an instance). It is a partial restatement of the title rather than a distinguishing statement, and it doesn't separate it from siblings like GetV1InstancesWebhookEndpointsSecret or GetV1InstancesWebhookEndpointsPortalAccess.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this versus the many neighboring webhook tools (secret retrieval, portal access, POST to create, DELETE by id). The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the list operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.