surveymonkey-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

surveymonkey_update_webhook

Update an existing SurveyMonkey webhook by providing its ID and the fields to change, allowing real-time event notifications to be adjusted without recreating the webhook.

Instructions

Updates a webhook (PATCH).

Args: webhook_id: Webhook ID. payload: Fields to update (same schema as surveymonkey_create_webhook).

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": {
      "webhook_id": "<webhook_id>",
      "payload": "<payload>"
    },
    "name": "surveymonkey_update_webhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`payload`	Yes
`webhook_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; it does disclose that this is a PATCH partial-update operation, which signals mutation and merging semantics. However, it omits side-effect details such as auth requirements, idempotency, or what happens on invalid fields.

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 compact and front-loaded: one clear operation statement followed by a minimal Args block. The pointer to create_webhook's schema avoids unnecessary duplication while preserving needed information.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is almost complete: it identifies the operation, the target resource, the arguments, and reuses an existing schema for payload. Minor gaps in explicit usage guidance and behavioral side effects keep it from being fully complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the Args section is essential. It defines webhook_id and, more importantly, says payload uses the same schema as surveymonkey_create_webhook, which compensates for the empty payload object in 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 states 'Updates a webhook (PATCH)', combining a specific verb, resource, and HTTP method. This clearly distinguishes it from create/get/list/delete webhook siblings without ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies this tool is for modifying an existing webhook, but it never explicitly explains when to choose it over create_webhook or delete_webhook. Usage context is present by implication, not by direct guidance.

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

Deploy Server