jami-mcp

Create test webhook

jami_create_test_webhook

Create a signed JamiDev webhook delivery to test your handler locally without a real event, optionally POSTing it to a target URL and reporting the response status.

Instructions

Build a correctly signed JamiDev webhook delivery for testing a handler locally — no real event needed.

Args:

type: 'order.created' | 'order.completed' | 'benefit.granted' | 'checkout.session.expired' | 'withdrawal.paid' | 'withdrawal.failed'.
secret: signing secret (defaults to JAMI_WEBHOOK_SECRET; any string works for a local test).
data: optional fields to merge over the realistic sample payload.
livemode: default false (sandbox).
target_url: optional. When set, the delivery is POSTed there (e.g. "http://localhost:3000/webhooks/jami") and the response status is reported.

Returns: { payload, signature, headers, curl } — the exact body and X-JamiDev-Signature to send, plus delivery_status when target_url is set. Handlers must verify the RAW body and reply 2xx within 10 seconds.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`type`	Yes
`secret`	No
`livemode`	No
`target_url`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`curl`	Yes
`headers`	Yes
`payload`	Yes
`signature`	Yes
`delivery_error`	No
`delivery_status`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Oct 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: default secret from JAMI_WEBHOOK_SECRET, livemode defaults to sandbox, target_url triggers an actual POST with reported status, and handlers must verify the RAW body and reply 2xx within 10 seconds. These are genuine operational traits not derivable from annotations.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by clean Args/Returns sections; every element is useful. Minor redundancy in re-listing the enum values already present in the schema, but overall tight and well-structured.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given 5 params, an object-typed field, and an existing output schema, the description still supplies the merge semantics, signing/verification requirements, and timeout constraint an agent needs to use the tool correctly. Nothing material is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full param burden and does so: it documents all five params (type enum, secret default source, data merge-over-sample semantics, livemode sandbox default, optional target_url POST semantics). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

Specific verb+resource with scope: 'Build a correctly signed JamiDev webhook delivery for testing a handler locally — no real event needed.' The phrase 'no real event needed' distinguishes it from a real webhook flow and from the sibling jami_verify_webhook. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Clearly states the use case (testing a handler locally) and the condition for the POST behavior (target_url set, response status reported). It does not explicitly name an alternative like jami_verify_webhook or when-not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server