Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Stables MCP Server

Stables MCP Server

Official
by stables-money
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

List webhook deliveries

list_webhook_deliveries
Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect recent webhook delivery attempts with HTTP status and retry state to diagnose why an integration is not receiving events; filter by status or event type.

Instructions

List recent webhook delivery attempts with their HTTP status and retry state. This is the first place to look when an integration is not receiving events: it shows whether Stables sent them and what the endpoint answered.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_webhook_deliveries"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusNoFilter by delivery status
pageSizeNoHow many attempts to return (default 10, max 50)
eventTypeNoFilter by event type (e.g. 'transfer.created')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.6.11
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. Addedv2.4.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: what the records contain (HTTP status, retry state) and what the presence/absence of an entry proves about whether Stables sent the event. It does not mention pagination or result ordering, which it could.

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, no waste, and the diagnostic use case is front-loaded right after the purpose statement. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by characterizing the returned fields (HTTP status, retry state) and the interpretive meaning of the result. It leaves out other likely return fields such as timestamps, event type, and response body, but is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and all three filters (status enum, pageSize with default/max, eventType with example) are documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about filtering behavior, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: lists webhook delivery attempts, and names the two key dimensions (HTTP status, retry state). It is distinguishable from the sibling list_webhooks, which manages webhook configuration rather than delivery history, though the description never makes that distinction explicit.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a clear triggering scenario — 'the first place to look when an integration is not receiving events' — which tells the agent exactly when this tool is the right entry point. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., check list_webhooks config, or the specific transfer) for the next step in a debugging flow.

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