get_webhookRetrieve a webhook endpoint by numeric ID to view its signing secret and delivery health, including consecutive failures and last success or failure.
Fetch a single webhook endpoint by its numeric id, including its signing secret and delivery health (consecutive failures, last success/failure).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The webhook endpoint id (from list_webhooks or create_webhook). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.39.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing that the response includes the signing secret and delivery health metrics (consecutive failures, last success/failure).
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The core action and notable return details are delivered immediately.
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?
The tool is a simple read-by-id operation with rich annotations, a fully described parameter, and no output schema. The description compensates for the missing output schema by naming the important returned fields, making it complete enough 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 100%, so the single id parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only 'by its numeric id', which confirms the type but does not extend parameter meaning beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('a single webhook endpoint by its numeric id') and adds the notable return contents (signing secret and delivery health). It distinguishes itself from list_webhooks by being singular and by returning secret/health rather than a collection.
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 does not state when to use this tool versus siblings such as list_webhooks, get_webhook_delivery, or get_webhook_event_types. It only implies usage by requiring a numeric id, which the schema already tells the agent is obtained from list_webhooks or create_webhook.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.