kualat-mcp

Test a webhook

test_webhook

Send an immediate ping to a webhook subscription and return the endpoint response code, so broken endpoints are detected before dependent workflows rely on them.

Instructions

Deliver a ping immediately and report the endpoint response code, so a broken endpoint shows up before the workflow depends on it.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "test_webhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Subscription id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this reaches outside. The description adds real value beyond that: the call causes an actual outbound ping to the subscriber URL and returns the endpoint's HTTP response code. It leaves out what happens on timeout/connection failure (error vs. encoded status) and whether retries occur.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence with the action front-loaded and the rationale trailing. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return value (response code) and the side effect (an outbound ping). Slightly incomplete in not covering failure semantics, which matters for a tool whose whole purpose is diagnosing broken endpoints.

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

Parameters3/5

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

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents 'Subscription id' with its bounds. The description adds nothing about the id — e.g. that it must reference an existing webhook subscription — so this is the baseline 3 rather than a boost.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific action (deliver a ping immediately) on a specific resource (a webhook subscription endpoint) plus the outcome it returns (response code). An agent can distinguish this from create_webhook/delete_webhook/list_webhooks by the verb alone, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The clause 'so a broken endpoint shows up before the workflow depends on it' implies the right moment to call it (pre-flight validation), but there are no explicit when-not conditions, no stated prerequisites such as the subscription needing to exist, and no alternatives referenced. Usage is inferable rather than prescribed.

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

Deploy Server