monapay_generate_webhook_snippetGenerates a ready-to-use webhook receiver snippet in PHP, Node, or Python with HMAC verification and sample payload, so developers can quickly set up MONA Pay webhook endpoints.
Trả code mẫu endpoint nhận webhook MONA Pay + verify HMAC đúng chuẩn cho PHP / Node / Python, kèm payload mẫu. / Get a webhook receiver snippet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| language | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the output is sample code with HMAC verification and a sample payload, but it does not explicitly disclose that the tool only returns code and does not create, modify, or register a webhook endpoint or send a test request.
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 bilingual sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and packs the key details, supported languages and HMAC verification, into compact form.
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 simple one-parameter code-snippet tool, the description covers the main facts a caller needs: the output kind, supported languages, HMAC verification, and sample payload. It could be slightly more complete by noting the tool has no side effects and does not configure an actual webhook, but the gap is minor.
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?
There is only one parameter, language, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by listing the supported languages (PHP, Node, Python), matching the enum values, but it does not explain any behavioral differences between language choices or how the response might vary.
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 names a specific verb ('Trả code mẫu' / get) and a specific resource (webhook receiver endpoint with HMAC verification) for PHP, Node, and Python. It clearly differentiates this code-generation tool from sibling webhook configuration/management tools such as monapay_create_webhook or monapay_webhook_stats.
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 implies the use case: call this when you need sample receiver code for a MONA Pay webhook. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, such as monapay_verify_signature for actually verifying a signature or monapay_create_webhook for registering a webhook.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.