list_webhooks
View all configured webhooks to monitor e-signature events and manage document workflows in SignForge.
Instructions
List all configured webhooks for your account.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
View all configured webhooks to monitor e-signature events and manage document workflows in SignForge.
List all configured webhooks for your account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but reveals nothing about permissions needed, rate limits, pagination behavior, response format, or whether this is a safe read operation. 'List all' implies comprehensive retrieval but doesn't clarify scope or constraints.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and easy to understand.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the output contains (e.g., webhook IDs, URLs, statuses), how results are structured, or any behavioral aspects like pagination. The agent lacks critical context to use this tool effectively.
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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. This meets the baseline for zero-parameter tools.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('all configured webhooks for your account'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'create_webhook' or 'delete_webhook', but the verb 'List' inherently distinguishes it from those mutation operations.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for listing webhooks, or when other tools like 'create_webhook' or 'delete_webhook' might be more appropriate. The agent must infer usage from the verb alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/kumarprobeops/signforge-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server