Register an outbound webhook to receive product plan events (node and iteration changes); returns a one-time signing secret to store immediately.
Register an outbound webhook. events defaults to all (node.added|updated|deleted, iteration.added|updated|deleted). Returns the signing secret ONCE — store it immediately.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | https URL; must be publicly routable | |
| events | No | ||
| projectId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it enumerates the exact default event set and warns that the signing secret is returned only once, an operational constraint found nowhere in the schema. It stops short of covering auth/permission requirements or error behavior for non-routable URLs.
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?
Three short sentences, zero filler, with the action and the one-time-secret warning front-loaded rather than buried.
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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the two facts an agent most needs: the default event set and the one-shot secret. The remaining gap is projectId semantics and permission requirements, which are undocumented in both schema and description.
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 coverage is only 33% — url is documented in-schema, while events and projectId are bare. The description compensates for events by giving its default value and item vocabulary, but says nothing about projectId, so an agent cannot tell whether it scopes the webhook to one project.
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?
"Register an outbound webhook" states a specific verb and resource, and the add/update/delete/list webhook siblings are clearly distinguishable from it without opening any schema.
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?
Usage is implied by the outbound-notification framing, and the events default is spelled out, but the description never says when to choose this over update_webhook/list_webhooks or what prerequisite state must exist before registering.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.