Skip to main content
Glama
devhelmhq

DevHelm MCP Server

Official
by devhelmhq

test_webhook

Validate webhook configuration by sending a test event to its endpoint using the webhook ID.

Instructions

Send a test event to a webhook endpoint to verify it works.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
webhook_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'test_webhook' tool. It takes a webhook_id (and optional api_token), calls the DevHelm SDK's webhooks.test() method, and returns the serialized result or raises a tool error.
    @mcp.tool()
    def test_webhook(webhook_id: str, api_token: str | None = None) -> ToolResult:
        """Send a test event to a webhook endpoint to verify it works."""
        try:
            return serialize(get_client(api_token).webhooks.test(webhook_id))
        except DevhelmError as e:
            raise_tool_error(e)
  • The function signature defines the schema: required 'webhook_id' (str) and optional 'api_token' (str | None).
    def test_webhook(webhook_id: str, api_token: str | None = None) -> ToolResult:
  • The 'register' function that registers tools (including test_webhook) onto the FastMCP instance via the @mcp.tool() decorator.
    def register(mcp: FastMCP) -> None:
  • In server.py, all tool modules (including webhooks) have their register() method called, which wires up test_webhook to the MCP server.
    for mod in ALL_TOOL_MODULES:
        mod.register(mcp)
  • ToolResult type alias used as the return type of test_webhook.
    ToolResult = dict[str, Any] | list[dict[str, Any]] | str
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, and the description lacks disclosure of behavioral traits like whether the test is safe to repeat, if it could trigger side effects, or how errors are handled. This leaves critical gaps for an agent.

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 highly concise (one sentence, 13 words) and front-loaded with the core action. While efficient, it sacrifices necessary detail, but remains well-structured.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (single parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is overly terse. It does not address prerequisites, behavior on failure, or differentiation from many sibling tools, leaving the agent under-informed.

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

Parameters1/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the burden falls on the description to explain the parameter 'webhook_id'. However, the description does not elaborate on its meaning, format, or relationship to other entities, failing to add value beyond the schema.

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 ('Send a test event') and the resource ('webhook endpoint') with the purpose of verification. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_webhook' or 'test_alert_channel'.

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 'test_alert_channel' or 'test_monitor'. The description does not include context or exclusions.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/devhelmhq/mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server