Replace a webhook's URL, subscribed events, and active status to update its configuration.
Replace a webhook's URL, events and active status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Webhook UUID | |
| url | Yes | Webhook endpoint URL | |
| events | Yes | Event types to subscribe to | |
| is_active | Yes | Whether the webhook is active |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether the update overwrites the entire events list (removing subscriptions not re-sent), whether auth/permissions are required, whether the change is reversible, or what happens if the webhook is inactive. For a full-replace mutation with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness is arguably under-specification rather than tight writing given the mutation risk.
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 4-required-param full-replace mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition should describe side effects, overwrite semantics, and error/return behavior. None of that is present, leaving the agent to guess about the consequences of the call.
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 four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description enumerates the same fields but adds no semantics such as event-name format, URL validation rules, or that all four are mandatory for the replace.
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?
States a specific verb (Replace) and resource (webhook) plus the fields affected, which lets an agent distinguish it from create_webhook, get_webhook, and delete_webhook. The only ambiguity is that 'Replace' connotes full overwrite while the name says 'update', but the intent is still clear.
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 or delete_webhook, and no preconditions (webhook must already exist, id must be valid). The agent must infer that this is for modifying existing webhooks from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.