Retrieve Linear webhooks filtered by team, with pagination and ordering, including archived ones to manage integrations.
Get a list of webhooks
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| teamId | No | ||
| orderBy | No | ||
| includeArchived | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination, rate limiting, whether archived webhooks are included by default). The schema suggests filtering ability but the description does not mention it.
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 a single, concise sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded, but the brevity sacrifices necessary detail.
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 tool with 4 optional parameters and a list operation, the description is too minimal. It does not mention that there is an output schema (which covers return values) or how to filter results, leaving gaps in usability for an AI agent.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameters like `limit`, `teamId`, `orderBy`, and `includeArchived`. It fails to do so, offering no guidance on their meaning or usage.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves a list of webhooks, which fits its name and distinguishes it from siblings like `linear_getWebhookById` (single webhook) or `linear_createWebhook`. However, it does not specify the scope (e.g., all webhooks, per team) or mention that filtering is possible via parameters.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `linear_getWebhookById` or when not to use it. The description lacks context on prerequisites, expected use cases, or boundaries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.