Fetch a stored webhook event from korb by event_id to inspect headers and full body as received for debugging failed deliveries.
Fetch one stored webhook event: headers and full body exactly as received. The id comes from list_failed (or the dashboard inbox).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event_id | Yes | event id from list_failed / korb events |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description isn't carrying that burden. It adds a useful fidelity guarantee ('exactly as received', implying no transformation or truncation), but says nothing about retention windows, missing-event behavior, or payload size limits.
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; the core action and the returned content are front-loaded and the id source follows as a secondary note. No filler whatsoever.
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?
With no output schema present, the description compensates by naming exactly what is returned (headers and full body, unmodified). For a single-parameter read-only fetch with full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter's description already says 'event id from list_failed / korb events'. The prose repeats that source rather than adding new meaning, so this is the baseline case where the schema does the work.
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 and resource — 'Fetch one stored webhook event' — and defines the payload scope as 'headers and full body exactly as received'. The singular 'one' and 'stored' cleanly distinguish it from the list-oriented sibling list_failed.
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?
Gives clear provenance for the required id ('comes from list_failed (or the dashboard inbox)'), which tells the agent the prerequisite step. It does not, however, state when to use this versus replay or send_test, so no explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.