Redeliver one stored webhook event to its routed destinations with the same event ID so receivers can dedupe. Requires a read+write token.
Redeliver one stored event to its routed destinations (same event id, korb-replay header set, receivers' own dedupe applies). Requires a read+write token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event_id | Yes | event id to redeliver |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden and does it well: it discloses the auth requirement ('read+write token'), the korb-replay header side effect, preservation of the original event id, and that receiver-side dedupe applies. It stops short of saying what happens on failure or whether the redelivery is retried.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action, with each parenthetical clause carrying distinct operational value (header, dedupe, auth). No filler.
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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the important operational context (auth, header, dedupe). It could be more complete by noting where to obtain a valid event_id (list_failed/get_payload) and the outcome of a failed redelivery.
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 event_id parameter is documented in the schema. The description adds the meaningful nuance that the id is the stored event's id and is preserved on redelivery, but no format or lookup guidance, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Specific verb+resource: 'Redeliver one stored event to its routed destinations' precisely states the action and its scope. It does not name or contrast with siblings (list_failed, get_payload, send_test), so an agent must infer that this replays an already-stored event rather than sending a new one.
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?
Usage is implied by 'one stored event' and the sibling set, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or pointer to the alternative (e.g. send_test for new events, list_failed to find candidates). No prerequisites are stated beyond the token requirement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.