List webhooks by project ID to view webhook configurations for a selected project.
List webhooks. Filter by project.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "taiga_webhooks_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No | Project ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. 'List' clearly implies a safe read operation, and 'Filter by project' discloses a scoping behavior. However, it does not mention pagination, response format, or any potential limitations, leaving some behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains zero fluff. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately communicates the operation and the optional filtering. It could mention pagination or response contents, but the basic context is sufficient for this low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already fully describes the 'project' parameter as a Project ID (100% coverage). The description adds value by stating 'Filter by project,' clarifying that this parameter is an optional filter rather than a required key or something else.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('webhooks'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, get, update, delete, and test. The phrase 'Filter by project' adds a scoping detail that further clarifies its role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need to list webhooks, optionally filtering by project. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., taiga_webhooks_get for a single webhook), nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.