Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Lightning Wallet MCP

Lightning Wallet MCP

by lightningfaucet
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

test_webhook

Validate webhook configuration by sending a test event. Requires agent key to ensure secure verification of webhook functionality.

Instructions

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

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": {
      "webhook_id": "<webhook_id>"
    },
    "name": "test_webhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
webhook_idYesID of the webhook to test

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.9

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It indicates a side effect (sending event) and auth requirement but omits outcome details (e.g., whether success is indicated) or potential rate limits.

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?

Two efficient sentences with no wasted words: first sentence states action and purpose, second adds a critical precondition. Front-loaded and concise.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, description is largely sufficient. Could optionally clarify that the test triggers the actual webhook endpoint, but core use case is clear.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for webhook_id with clear description. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states action ('Send a test event') and resource ('webhook') with purpose ('to verify it works'). Distinguishes from sibling tools like register_webhook and delete_webhook.

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?

Mentions requirement 'REQUIRES AGENT KEY' but provides no guidance on when to use versus alternatives like register_webhook or list_webhooks. No explicit exclusion criteria.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools