Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
booking_chest

booking_chest

by dsddet
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

create_webhook

Set up a webhook to receive real-time notifications when booking events occur. Provide a subscriber URL and select trigger events like creation, rescheduling, or cancellation.

Instructions

Create a user-level webhook for real-time event notifications.

IMPORTANT: Use triggers (NOT eventTriggers — that was an old API doc error).

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": {
      "subscriber_url": "<subscriber_url>",
      "triggers": "<triggers>"
    },
    "name": "create_webhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
activeNoEnable/disable webhook (default: true)
secretNoSignature secret for payload verification
triggersYesList of trigger names. Available: BOOKING_CREATED, BOOKING_RESCHEDULED, BOOKING_CANCELLED, BOOKING_PAID, BOOKING_REQUESTED, BOOKING_REJECTED, BOOKING_NO_SHOW_UPDATED, FORM_SUBMITTED, MEETING_ENDED, MEETING_STARTED, RECORDING_READY, INSTANT_MEETING, OOO_CREATED, and more (21 total)
subscriber_urlYesWebhook endpoint URL

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool creates a 'user-level webhook' and mentions real-time notifications, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether the webhook is immediately active, what happens on duplicate creation, or permission requirements. The correction about `triggers` vs `eventTriggers` adds useful context.

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 two sentences, with a clear and helpful warning in the second sentence. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. No extraneous information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given an output schema exists (so return values need not be described), 4 parameters, and no nested objects, the description is adequate but minimal. It doesn't elaborate on scoping (what 'user-level' means vs event-type), rate limits, or troubleshooting guidance for webhook setup.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the correct parameter name (`triggers` vs `eventTriggers`) and noting the `active` default is true. This addresses an important nuance not fully captured in the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 this tool creates a user-level webhook for real-time event notifications, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_webhooks, update_webhook, delete_webhook, and the event-type-specific webhook 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 provides an explicit usage correction (use `triggers`, not `eventTriggers`) and implies this is for user-level webhooks, which differentiates it from event-type webhook tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or list alternative tools for event-type webhooks.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools