list_webhook_failuresLists webhook deliveries that failed after all 9 retry attempts, showing delivery ID, endpoint, URL, attempt count, last status code, and error so you can diagnose persistent delivery problems.
Deliveries that gave up after all retries (9 attempts): delivery_id, endpoint, url, attempts, last status code and error. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max rows (default 50, max 200). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the failure set is defined as retry-exhausted after exactly 9 attempts (not merely recent errors), the response fields are previewed, and 'Free' signals no credit cost. Pagination/ordering behavior is the only notable omission.
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 tight sentence, front-loaded with the scope-defining clause ('gave up after all retries') followed by the return fields and the cost note. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.
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 output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields, and it defines the failure semantics and cost model. For a one-parameter read-only list tool this is close to sufficient; only result ordering and pagination beyond the limit cap are unaddressed.
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 coverage is 100% and the sole limit parameter is fully documented there (default 50, max 200). The description adds nothing about limit and does not say whether results are ordered or capped in a particular way, so it sits at the baseline where the schema carries the parameter burden.
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 states precisely which resource is listed: webhook deliveries that exhausted all retries, and enumerates the returned fields (delivery_id, endpoint, url, attempts, status code, error). 'Gave up after all retries (9 attempts)' sharply defines the failure set, implicitly distinguishing it from list_webhooks. It does not name sibling tools such as replay_webhook_failures, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.
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 only implied through the definition of 'failed' as terminal retry exhaustion, which usefully rules out in-flight or transiently failing deliveries. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of pairing with replay_webhook_failures to act on results, and no mention of list_webhooks as the broader alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.