Skip to main content
Glama

test_webhook

Verify webhook functionality by sending a test event to ensure proper integration with the Lightning Wallet MCP server's payment and API systems.

Instructions

Send a test event to a webhook to verify it works. REQUIRES AGENT KEY.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
webhook_idYesID of the webhook to test

Implementation Reference

  • The implementation of the test_webhook functionality in the LightningFaucetClient class.
    /**
     * Send a test event to a webhook
     */
    async testWebhook(webhookId: number): Promise<{
      message: string;
      deliveryId?: number;
      rawResponse: ApiResponse;
    }> {
      const result = await this.request<ApiResponse & {
        message?: string;
        delivery_id?: number;
      }>('test_webhook', { webhook_id: webhookId });
    
      return {
        message: result.message || 'Test event queued',
        deliveryId: result.delivery_id,
        rawResponse: result,
      };
    }
  • The tool handler for test_webhook, which calls the client method and returns the result.
    case 'test_webhook': {
      const parsed = TestWebhookSchema.parse(args);
      const result = await session.requireClient().testWebhook(parsed.webhook_id);
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: 'text',
            text: JSON.stringify({
              success: true,
              message: result.message || 'Test event sent',
              delivery_id: result.deliveryId,
            }, null, 2),
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • The Zod schema for validating the inputs of the test_webhook tool.
    const TestWebhookSchema = z.object({
      webhook_id: z.number().int().positive().describe('ID of the webhook to test'),
    });
  • src/index.ts:519-529 (registration)
    The registration and schema definition for the test_webhook tool in the MCP tool list.
    {
      name: 'test_webhook',
      description: 'Send a test event to a webhook to verify it works. REQUIRES AGENT KEY.',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          webhook_id: { type: 'integer', description: 'ID of the webhook to test' },
        },
        required: ['webhook_id'],
      },
    },
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the authentication requirement ('REQUIRES AGENT KEY'), which adds some context. However, it lacks details on what the test event entails, potential side effects (e.g., whether it triggers real processes), rate limits, or response behavior. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to fully understand its behavior.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the purpose and a key requirement. There is no unnecessary information, and each sentence adds value. It could be slightly improved by integrating the requirement more smoothly, but it remains efficient and well-structured.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (a single-parameter action with no output schema and no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and an authentication requirement but lacks details on behavioral traits, output expectations, or error handling. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it provides a basic foundation, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'webhook_id' clearly documented. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain where to find the ID or format details). According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Send a test event to a webhook to verify it works.' It specifies the verb ('send'), resource ('webhook'), and goal ('verify it works'), which is clear and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'register_webhook' or 'delete_webhook', which would be needed for a score of 5.

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 description provides some implied usage context by stating 'REQUIRES AGENT KEY,' which suggests a prerequisite for authentication. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to test a webhook versus creating or deleting one) or provide clear exclusions. The guidance is limited to an implied requirement without broader context.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/lightningfaucet/lightning-wallet-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server