Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
wp-mcp-control-server

wp-mcp-control-server

by mpierre135
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

wp_list_webhook_deliveries

List delivery log entries for a webhook by ID to review delivery history, identify failed attempts, and troubleshoot webhook issues.

Instructions

List delivery log entries for a custom MCP webhook

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "wp_list_webhook_deliveries"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesWebhook ID
pageNo
per_pageNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.3.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden; 'List' clearly signals a read-only operation with no destructive side effects. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or what a delivery log entry contains, so transparency is only partially covered.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the operation and target resource efficiently.

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?

With no output schema and only 33% parameter coverage, the description is enough for a basic call (provide a webhook id) but not enough for an agent to know what a delivery log entry looks like, how results are paginated, or how this tool differs from listing webhooks. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 33%; 'id' is described as 'Webhook ID' in the schema, and the description adds only the 'custom MCP webhook' qualifier. The optional page and per_page parameters are left undocumented in both schema and description, so an agent must infer pagination semantics from their names.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('delivery log entries') and scopes it to a custom MCP webhook, clearly separating it from tools that list webhooks themselves or webhook topics. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the object of the action is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of related webhook tools, such as wp_list_custom_webhooks, wp_get_custom_webhook, or wp_test_custom_webhook. The description leaves the selection criteria entirely to inference.

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