Retrieve a webhook endpoint's configuration by its ID. Use it to inspect where events are delivered and verify endpoint settings before updating or debugging integrations.
Get a webhook endpoint.
Requires scope webhooks:read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context by stating the required scope `webhooks:read`, but says nothing about behavior when the ID doesn't exist or what a successful call yields.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and with zero filler. Brevity is close to under-specification, but nothing stated is wasted.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description would ideally hint at what a webhook endpoint object contains or at least confirm it returns the endpoint record; it doesn't. For a one-parameter read-only getter with strong annotations, it is minimally adequate but leaves the return value and failure mode unstated.
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 0% for the single `id` parameter, so the description must compensate and it does not — it never says what form the webhook endpoint ID takes or where to obtain it (e.g., from list_webhook_endpoints).
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 and resource ('Get a webhook endpoint'), which is unambiguous against most siblings. It does not differentiate from list_webhook_endpoints or make explicit that this is a single-resource fetch by ID, so an agent must infer the distinction from the schema.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus list_webhook_endpoints or update_webhook_endpoint, and no mention of prerequisites beyond the scope. The only signal is the tool name plus a required id parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.