Skip to main content
Glama

list_hooks

Lists a deployed app's inbound webhooks for owners or admins, returning each hook's name, sender, path, URL and secret reference.

Instructions

List a deployed app's inbound webhooks (owner or admin only).

    Returns ``{service_name, hooks: [{name, sender, path, header, prefix,
    secret_ref, secret_key, url, created_at}]}``. ``url`` is null until the
    machine is linked, and answers only once the app is shared.
    

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesName (or row id) of an existing deployed app — only kind 'service' can be exposed: ``share_service``/``add_domain`` refuse a model or database with 422 ``*.kind_unsupported``, while the remove tools just find nothing to undo.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the owner/admin access restriction, the shared-app prerequisite, the exact return shape, and the condition under which url is null. It stops short of describing pagination, ordering, or error behavior, so a 3 would be too harsh but 4 captures the remaining gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and access constraint, then provides return shape and important null semantics. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Although there is no output schema, the description supplies the return structure in detail, including the fields of each hook and the null-url condition. Combined with the fully documented single parameter, this is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema with details about app kind restrictions and error behavior. The description only reinforces that the name refers to a deployed app, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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?

The description begins with a specific verb and resource: "List a deployed app's inbound webhooks." It distinguishes itself from add_hook/remove_hook through the verb "List" and scopes the resource to inbound webhooks on a deployed app, so an agent can identify the correct operation without opening sibling schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives clear usage context by stating "owner or admin only" and that answers come only once the app is shared. These are meaningful preconditions. It does not explicitly name add_hook or remove_hook as alternatives for creation or deletion, so it stops short of a 5.

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