SkyFi MCP Server

create_webhook_subscription

Register a webhook endpoint to receive push notifications when new satellite imagery matches a monitoring rule. Requires an active monitor ID to link the subscription.

Instructions

Register a webhook endpoint to receive push notifications when new imagery matching a monitoring rule is available. Requires an active monitor_id from setup_aoi_monitoring.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "monitor_id": "<monitor_id>",
      "endpoint_url": "<endpoint_url>"
    },
    "name": "create_webhook_subscription"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`secret`	No	Shared secret for webhook signature verification
`monitor_id`	Yes	Monitor ID from setup_aoi_monitoring
`endpoint_url`	Yes	HTTPS URL to receive webhook notifications

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions the monitor_id requirement but omits key behavioral details such as return values, idempotency, error handling, or what side effects (e.g., immediate verification request) might occur.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose, and the prerequisite is valuable context. No redundant words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description clearly states purpose and prerequisite, but for a creation operation with no output schema, it should also mention expected return (e.g., subscription ID) and potential error conditions. It is partially complete but missing these elements.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantic beyond what the schema already states (e.g., monitor_id source is already in the schema).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly specifies the action ('Register') and resource ('webhook endpoint') with its purpose ('receive push notifications'), and distinguishes from sibling setup_aoi_monitoring by referencing monitor_id dependency.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly states a prerequisite ('Requires an active monitor_id from setup_aoi_monitoring'), giving clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives like polling via get_notification_status.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.