list_webhooksRetrieve all configured Flodesk webhooks, with pagination and optional account filtering, to audit or manage integrations.
List all webhooks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | The page number. Defaults to 1. | |
| account | No | Exact configured private account profile label; not a tenant or provider account ID. | |
| per_page | No | The number of records to be returned on each page. Defaults to 20. Maximum 100. |
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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond that—no return format, pagination behavior, or scoping details—so it earns no credit for behavioral disclosure.
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?
The description is a single short sentence with no padding, so it is concise. But it is a tautological restatement of the name and title, meaning the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency.
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 zero-parameter-required list tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description is technically sufficient to invoke the tool. It nonetheless omits any note on pagination or the account filter's role, leaving gaps an agent would have to resolve from the schema alone.
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 100%, with page, per_page, and account fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description provides no additional parameter meaning, leaving it at the baseline.
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?
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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_webhook or list_all_custom_fields, and no mention of pagination context or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.