Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
send16-mcp

send16-mcp

by spruikco
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

regenerate_webhook_secret

Rotate the HMAC signing secret for an outgoing webhook endpoint and return the new secret.

Instructions

Rotate the HMAC signing secret for an outgoing webhook endpoint. Returns the new secret once.

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": {
      "webhookId": "<webhookId>"
    },
    "name": "regenerate_webhook_secret"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
apiKeyNoSend16 API key (overrides SEND16_API_KEY env var)
webhookIdYesWebhook ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.7

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool rotates the secret and returns it once, but lacks details on what happens to the old secret, immediate invalidation, rate limits, or impacts on active webhooks. For a security-sensitive operation, this is insufficient.

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?

Two sentences: the first clearly states the action and resource, the second states the return behavior. No extraneous information, front-loaded, and efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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?

For a simple mutation with two params and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and return. However, it omits details about side effects (e.g., webhook downtime) and prerequisites. While not critically incomplete, it could be more comprehensive for a security-sensitive operation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by specifying that the secret is 'HMAC signing' and for an 'outgoing webhook', which provides context beyond the schema's parameter names and descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the action 'Rotate the HMAC signing secret' and the resource 'outgoing webhook endpoint', with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_webhook' or 'delete_webhook' by specifying rotation.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for an existing webhook but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use it. No exclusions or references to sibling tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools