HacknPlan MCP

replace_webhook

Replace a webhook's URL, events, and secret for a specific project on HacknPlan. This PUT operation completes a full replacement.

Instructions

Full replacement of a webhook (PUT)

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>",
      "webhookId": "<webhookId>",
      "url": "<url>",
      "events": "<events>"
    },
    "name": "replace_webhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes
`events`	Yes
`secret`	No
`projectId`	Yes
`webhookId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 28, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only says 'full replacement' and 'PUT'. It does not mention overwriting all fields, authorization needs, or side effects like breaking existing connections.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely brief (7 words) but this conciseness comes at the cost of under-specification. It does not earn its place because it provides minimal useful information.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (5 params, 4 required, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It lacks return value info, prerequisites, and differentiation from related tools.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning to the five parameters (url, events, secret, projectId, webhookId). It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the verb 'replace' and resource 'webhook', indicating a full replacement. However, it does not distinguish between this and the sibling 'update_webhook' which might do partial updates, lacking specificity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_webhook or update_webhook. The description merely states the HTTP method 'PUT' without context.

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

Deploy Server