get_sample_webhook_dataFetches sample webhook payloads for Calendly events, enabling developers to build and test webhook handlers without live triggers.
Get sample webhook data. Reads Calendly data. Required scopes: webhooks:read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user | No | ||
| event | Yes | ||
| group | No | ||
| scope | Yes | ||
| account | No | Named private Calendly account; selects credentials, not an organization URI. | |
| organization | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'webhooks:read' scope requirement, which is genuine auth context beyond the annotations, but says nothing about what the returned sample contains, whether it is canned vs. live, 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?
Three short, front-loaded sentences with almost no padding, though 'Reads Calendly data' is filler that carries no actionable information. Nothing is buried, and the scope constraint is easy to spot.
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 6-parameter tool with low schema coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin: it never defines what 'sample' data means, how scope/event/organization combine, or what the caller should expect back. Annotations cover safety, but the functional gaps remain.
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 only 17% (just the 'account' field), and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. Key required parameters such as event, scope, and organization — including how the scope enum interacts with the event enum — are entirely unexplained in prose.
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 first sentence is a verbatim restatement of the name/title, which is close to tautology, but 'Reads Calendly data' plus the scope requirement do signal that this returns a sample webhook payload. It offers no differentiation from the closest sibling, get_webhook, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone what distinguishes a 'sample' fetch from a real webhook record.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no named alternative, and no stated preconditions beyond the scope string. Given siblings like get_webhook and list_webhooks exist, the description leaves the agent to guess which to call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.