monapay_webhook_logsRetrieve webhook delivery logs with HTTP status, response time, and error labels to debug failed callbacks; filter by status, date range, and page through results.
Lịch sử từng lần gửi (HTTP code, thời gian phản hồi, nhãn lỗi). / Webhook delivery logs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| to_date | No | ||
| from_date | No | YYYY-MM-DD |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some value by listing returned fields (HTTP code, response time, error label), but omits pagination behavior, filtering semantics, and any auth requirements. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, a 3 is appropriate.
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 very short and front-loads the core concept ('history of each delivery'). The bilingual repetition (Vietnamese then English) is somewhat redundant, but the overall structure is efficient with no wasted sentences.
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?
Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and only 20% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It mentions return fields but omits usage context, parameter meanings, pagination, and date-range behavior, leaving the agent with significant gaps for correct invocation.
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 description coverage is only 20% (only from_date has a format hint), and the description provides zero information about the five input parameters (page, limit, status, to_date, from_date). It does not compensate for the low coverage, leaving filtering and pagination semantics undocumented.
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?
States a specific resource (webhook delivery logs) and enumerates return fields (HTTP code, response time, error label), which distinguishes it from sibling monapay_webhook_stats (aggregated stats) and monapay_list_webhooks (configuration list). No explicit sibling naming, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to differentiate.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives are mentioned. The description merely states what the tool is, leaving the agent to infer context from the name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.