bot_get_webhook_infoCheck whether a Bale bot has a webhook set, view pending updates and the last error to confirm reading tools can receive messages.
Show whether a webhook is set (url empty = the reading tools work), pending updates and the last error.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"bot_get_webhook_infoArguments"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "title": "bot_get_webhook_infoDictOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing the returned fields and, crucially, the interpretation rule for the url field (empty = reading tools work), which no annotation conveys. It stops short of covering pending-update or error semantics, so it is not a 5.
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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and parenthesizing the interpretation hint. Every clause earns its place with zero filler.
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?
With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description carries the return-value burden and does list the three things returned. It is complete enough to call the tool correctly, though the meaning of 'pending updates' and expected recovery on 'last error' are left implicit.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and no parameter text is needed.
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 names a specific verb+resource (show webhook status) and enumerates exactly what is returned: whether a webhook is set, pending updates, and the last error. The parenthetical 'url empty = the reading tools work' links this tool to the sibling read tools (bot_read_chat, bot_get_new_messages), so an agent can tell why this call matters alongside them.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the note that an empty url means 'the reading tools work' hints this is a diagnostic to run before relying on read tools, but there is no explicit 'use this when messages are missing' or when-not guidance. An agent can infer the diagnostic context but must do the inference itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.