OutreachPilot MCP Server

create_webhook

Register a webhook with OutreachPilot to receive real-time event notifications. Use an HTTPS URL to subscribe to email, SMS, and campaign events.

Instructions

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": {
      "url": "<url>",
      "events": "<events>"
    },
    "name": "create_webhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	HTTPS URL to POST event payloads to.
`events`	Yes	Events to subscribe to: email.sent, email.opened, email.replied, email.bounced, campaign.started, campaign.completed, campaign.paused, contact.created, contact.updated, sms.sent, sms.replied.
`secret`	No	Optional signing secret for HMAC verification of payloads.
`idempotency_key`	No	Optional stable key to prevent duplicate webhook registration on retries.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It adds useful context (HTTPS requirement, real-time notifications) but omits important details such as what the function returns, permission prerequisites, or any rate limits, limiting its transparency.

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 highly concise and front-loaded. Two sentences convey the registration purpose and the HTTPS requirement without any wasted words.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks essential context about what the tool returns (e.g., webhook ID) and what happens after successful registration. For a tool with four parameters and no structured output details, this is a significant gap.

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?

The input schema already contains complete descriptions for all four parameters, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description introduces no additional parameter meanings, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Register a webhook') and its purpose ('receive real-time event notifications'), making it distinct from sibling tools such as list_webhooks and delete_webhook. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives like list_webhooks or delete_webhook. It only states a technical constraint (HTTPS URL) but lacks any contextual direction about when registration is appropriate.

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