Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Flodesk MCP Server

Flodesk MCP Server

by thenavidm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Retrieve a webhook.

get_webhook
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves a Flodesk webhook by ID, optionally scoped to a private account profile, for inspection and management.

Instructions

Retrieve a webhook.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_webhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesExact native path parameter.
accountNoExact configured private account profile label; not a tenant or provider account ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing on top — no error/not-found behavior, no noting that this is a safe repeatable read, no scoping caveats.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single short sentence, so there is no waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise — it conveys only what the title already does. Front-loaded yes, but no substantive content follows.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a simple read tool with full annotation coverage and a fully documented schema, the minimum is met, but there is no output schema, so the description could reasonably state what is returned or what happens when the webhook id is unknown. It leaves all of that unaddressed.

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 the two parameters (id, account) are fully documented in the schema, including the nuance that 'account' is a profile label rather than a tenant/provider ID. The description contributes nothing further, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose2/5

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

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to call this versus list_webhooks (for enumeration) or the create/update/delete webhook siblings. The verb 'retrieve' weakly implies 'fetch one webhook by id', which is the only inferred usage signal.

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