Transistor-MCP

subscribe_webhook

Subscribe a show to a webhook to receive events like episode_created. Provide event name, show ID, and callback URL.

Instructions

Subscribe to a webhook for a show

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "event_name": "<event_name>",
      "show_id": "<show_id>",
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "subscribe_webhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	URL to receive webhook events
`show_id`	Yes	ID of the show to subscribe to
`event_name`	Yes	Event name (e.g., 'episode_created')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits like side effects (creating a subscription), but it only states the basic action. It does not mention validation, duplicate handling, or confirmation behavior.

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 very concise at 7 words, but it could be slightly improved by adding context about the subscription lifecycle without being verbose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

No output schema and no description of return values or success indicators. The tool is a write operation but does not disclose what happens upon successful subscription (e.g., returns a subscription ID).

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 clearly states the action 'subscribe' and the resource 'webhook for a show', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_webhooks' and 'unsubscribe_webhook'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_webhooks' or 'unsubscribe_webhook'. The description lacks context for decision-making.

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