update_webhookModify an existing LightCMS webhook's name, URL, events, or active status; only supplied fields change for partial updates.
Update an existing webhook (name, URL, events, active). Partial update — only provided fields change.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Webhook ID,required | |
| url | No | New endpoint URL | |
| name | No | New name | |
| active | No | Enable or disable the webhook | |
| events | No | New event list |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v7.3.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context with "Partial update — only provided fields change," but leaves the surprising destructiveHint unexplained (e.g., whether the events array replaces or merges, or what data can be lost), which is a notable gap for a destructive mutation.
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?
Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the partial-update behavior called out second. No filler, though the single-purpose brevity leaves nothing else addressed.
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?
Adequate for a mutation tool whose annotations carry the safety profile and which has no output schema. However, it omits whether omitted fields are cleared, whether events replace the existing list, and any auth/permission context that would fully equip an agent before invoking a destructive update.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented. The description lists the mutable fields (name, URL, events, active) but adds no syntax, format, or replacement-vs-merge semantics beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.
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?
Clear verb+resource ("Update an existing webhook") and it enumerates the fields that can change, so an agent immediately knows what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like create_webhook or delete_webhook, but the verb makes the distinction inferable.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus create_webhook, delete_webhook, or regenerate_webhook_secret, and no prerequisites/preconditions stated. The only actionable hint is "Partial update — only provided fields change," which describes behavior rather than usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.