Lists registered webhooks with their events, status, and failure counts, with pagination by page and per_page, so you can audit and monitor webhook health.
List all registered webhooks with their events, status, and failure counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (default 1) | |
| per_page | No | Results per page |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.71.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies some returned fields, but does not state whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are ordered, or how pagination behaves beyond what the schema already declares.
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 description is a single well-formed sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource and then lists the most useful returned fields.
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 simple two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to understand the basic purpose. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it could do more to describe pagination behavior, result ordering, or the shape of the returned webhook records.
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 both 'page' and 'per_page' are documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, which is acceptable at baseline when the schema already handles parameter documentation.
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 and resource: 'List all registered webhooks' and names the returned fields (events, status, failure counts). It clearly distinguishes this list operation from sibling create/update/delete webhook tools, though it does not explicitly reference those alternatives.
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 read-only listing purpose is implied by 'List all registered webhooks,' but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like conduyt_create_webhook, conduyt_update_webhook, or conduyt_delete_webhook. The schema shows pagination parameters, but the description does not explain when pagination or filtering is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.