list_webhooksLists webhook endpoints with their ID, URL, status, and creation date. Filter results by active or inactive status to review or manage configured webhooks.
List webhook endpoints (id, url, status, created_at). Optionally filter by status. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Only endpoints in this state. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned field set and the 'Free' cost note, which is genuinely useful context not present in structured fields, but says nothing about ordering or pagination of the listing.
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?
Three short clauses, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the return fields, then the filter and cost. No filler and nothing 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?
For a single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the inline field list effectively documents the return shape and the 'Free' note clarifies billing impact. The only gap is whether the listing is complete or paged, which is not addressed.
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% and the status enum is documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description confirms the filter is optional but adds no format or behavioral detail (e.g., default behavior when omitted) beyond what the schema already states.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List webhook endpoints') and enumerates the returned fields (id, url, status, created_at), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the related sibling list_webhook_failures or create_webhook/delete_webhook, which keeps it out of the top band.
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?
'Optionally filter by status' tells the agent the filter is opt-in, which is implied usage guidance for the single parameter. There is no explicit when-to-use versus list_webhook_failures or when-not guidance, so selection still requires inference from the sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.