resend_webhook_deliveryResend an existing webhook delivery to retry failed attempts with the same webhook ID and body, re-signed for authenticity. Requires the webhook to be enabled.
Send a delivery again (a new series of attempts, same webhook-id and body, signed afresh). The webhook must be on. Returns { ok, deliveryId, message }.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deliveryId | Yes | Delivery id (from list_webhook_deliveries) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.31.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description details the internal mechanism of the resend, specifying that it creates a 'new series of attempts,' uses the 'same webhook-id and body,' and signs 'afresh.' This is high-value behavioral context.
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?
The definition is highly concise. It packs the action, the constraints (webhook status), and the technical details of the resend process into one information-dense sentence.
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?
Given the absence of formal annotations or output schema, the description is exceptionally complete, detailing the operation, preconditions, and the expected return structure.
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?
The description adds critical context to the deliveryId parameter by stating its origin ('from list_webhook_deliveries'), which assists the agent in understanding the required input source.
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 tool's purpose is stated clearly: to send a delivery again. It is highly specific and distinct from sibling tools like list_webhook_deliveries or create_webhook.
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?
It provides a critical usage requirement that the webhook must be on. While it doesn't list formal exclusions, this condition acts as a vital operational guideline for the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.