HacknPlan MCP

create_webhook

Create a webhook to receive real-time notifications from a HacknPlan project. Subscribe to specific event types and optionally secure the endpoint with a secret.

Instructions

Create a new webhook for a project

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	HTTPS endpoint to receive webhook payloads
`events`	Yes	Event types to subscribe to (use list_webhook_event_types)
`secret`	No	Optional secret for payload signature verification
`projectId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 28, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must provide behavioral context. It only states 'create', but discloses no side effects, limits, authentication needs, or whether it overwrites existing webhooks.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. However, it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness to add usage context.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain how to use webhooks, event subscription, or that projectId must correspond to an existing project.

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?

Schema description coverage is 75% (projectId lacks a description). The tool description adds no extra meaning to parameters; it does not clarify required fields or how to obtain event types despite schema referring to list_webhook_event_types.

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 tool creates a webhook for a project, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_webhooks or delete_webhook.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it does not mention that one should first list webhooks or use list_webhook_event_types to determine available events.

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

Deploy Server