get_webhook_deliveryFetch a webhook delivery by ID to inspect its full JSON payload and current delivery status; use IDs from list_webhook_deliveries.
Fetch a single webhook delivery by id, including the full JSON payload that was (or will be) sent and its delivery status. Get delivery ids from list_webhook_deliveries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The delivery id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.39.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral content beyond that: it discloses that the returned payload is what 'was (or will be) sent', clarifying that deliveries may be pending, and that status is included.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return content, followed by the id-sourcing hint. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: what is fetched, what the response contains (payload and status), and how to obtain the id. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
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 100% and there is only one parameter, whose schema description ('The delivery id.') already covers it. The description confirms the id is the identifier but adds no format, range, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema and the id-source sentence provide. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (a single webhook delivery by id), and explicitly names what it returns: the full JSON payload plus delivery status. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list_webhook_deliveries, which enumerates rather than retrieves one.
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 tells the agent where the required argument comes from: 'Get delivery ids from list_webhook_deliveries.' That is clear routing context for the primary use case. It stops short of explicit when-not or exclusion guidance, so it is not a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.