Skip to main content
Glama
canopy-labs

Featureflip

Official

Create, update, or delete a webhook subscription, or rotate its secret

manage_webhook
Destructive

Create and manage webhooks for Featureflip events: add receiver URLs, update subscriptions, rotate or retire signing secrets, and control projects, environments, or event types.

Instructions

action=create requires name + url and returns the signing secret. action=update/delete/rotate_secret/retire_secret require id. update changes only the fields you pass and keeps the rest; pass an empty list to widen that filter back to "all". projects take project keys or ids; environments take "/" keys (e.g. "web/production") or ids. eventTypes come from list_webhooks → availableEventTypes. create and rotate_secret return a secret that is NEVER shown again: relay it to the user verbatim so they can store it. rotate_secret adds a new active secret while the old one keeps signing; retire_secret (secretId from list_webhooks) removes one and is refused for the last active secret. A project-restricted service token must list at least one project, all in its scope. Requires an Admin token. A 404 on every webhook call means webhooks are not enabled for the organization.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoSubscription id; required for everything except create
urlNoReceiver URL; required for create
nameNoRequired for create
actionYes
enabledNoupdate only; subscriptions are created enabled
projectsNoProject keys or ids to cover; empty or omitted on create = all
secretIdNoRequired for retire_secret
eventTypesNoEvent types to send; empty or omitted = all
environmentsNo"<project>/<environment>" keys or environment ids; empty or omitted on create = all
idempotency_keyNoIdempotency-Key header for create / rotate_secret

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.8

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explaining partial-update semantics, the one-time-only display of signing secrets, rotation/retirement behavior, and the 404-equals-disabled-webhooks signal. This gives an agent a reliable model of side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense and free of fluff, front-loading the create requirements before the other actions. It is one long paragraph, so a bulleted layout would improve scannability, but every clause earns its place.

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?

For a multi-action tool with 10 params and no output schema, the description covers required params, one-time secret return, auth, token scoping, sibling data sources, and a failure mode. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Even with 90% schema coverage, the description adds action-dependent parameter meaning: which params are required per action, how to format projects and environments, that empty lists widen filters, and where to source eventTypes/secretId. These semantics are not inferable from the schema alone.

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 title and description clearly identify the resource (webhook subscriptions) and the specific actions (create, update, delete, rotate_secret, retire_secret). The description's action-level requirements disambiguate it from read-only siblings like list_webhooks and webhook delivery tools.

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 description gives clear preconditions: create requires name+url, other actions require id, Admin token is required, and project-restricted tokens must list projects in scope. It points to list_webhooks for eventTypes and secretId, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name a sibling as the alternative for read-only webhook inspection.

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