replay_webhook_failuresResend failed webhook deliveries by passing specific delivery IDs or omitting them to requeue all failures; returns the number requeued.
Send failed deliveries again. Pass delivery_ids to replay specific ones, or omit to replay all of them. Returns how many were requeued. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| delivery_ids | No | Specific deliveries; omit for all. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context — that it returns a requeued count and that the call is free — but says nothing about what actually happens on replay (retry of original payload, whether replayed deliveries can fail again, or any rate limits).
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?
Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then parameter behavior, then return value, then cost. Nothing is padded and each sentence carries information.
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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, how to scope it, and roughly what comes back. It is only missing post-replay expectations (do failures re-enter the failure list, are partial failures reported), which for a simple replay tool is a minor gap.
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 schema's own description already says "omit for all", so the description largely restates the parameter. It does emphasize the bulk consequence of omitting the field, which is a small value-add over the schema, but no format details (ID provenance, ordering, limits) are added.
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 a specific verb and resource ("Send failed deliveries again" / replay of failed webhook deliveries), which is concrete enough to distinguish it from the adjacent listing tool. It stops short of naming list_webhook_failures as the sibling that produces the IDs, so differentiation relies partly on the tool name.
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?
It explains the two modes of invocation (specific IDs vs. omit for all), which is practical usage guidance. However, it never states when to use this at all — no prerequisite such as "after list_webhook_failures", no caution about bulk replaying everything, and no alternatives named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.