Zappaz MCP Server

create_webhook

Creates a new webhook for a Zappaz API session, letting you configure endpoint URL, events, headers, and enabled status to receive WhatsApp event notifications.

Instructions

Cria um novo webhook para uma sessão na Zappaz API

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": {
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "create_webhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only asserts that a webhook is created. It says nothing about whether this is idempotent, what happens on duplicate URLs, whether the endpoint must be reachable or verified, what permissions/auth are needed, or how the optional Authorization header is used.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is under-specified rather than bloated, which is a completeness problem rather than a conciseness one.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a large nested input (events toggles, headers, enabled flag), the description is far too thin. An agent lacks enough context to know what a 'session' is, what the required fields mean, or what a successful call returns.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The single parameter is a nested object with 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's property names. The rich 'events' map and the 'headers.Authorization' field are entirely unexplained, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Cria um novo webhook') plus a scoping detail ('para uma sessão na Zappaz API'), so an agent can tell it creates a webhook rather than reading, updating, or deleting one. It does not name the sibling CRUD counterparts, but the distinction is obvious from the verb.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. an existing session is implied but not stated), and no reference to update_webhook/get_webhooks as alternatives. The agent must infer routing from the verb alone.

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