Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Flodesk MCP Server

Flodesk MCP Server

by thenavidm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Update a webhook.

update_webhook
Destructive

Modify an existing Flodesk webhook by ID to change its name, enabled events, or destination URL.

Instructions

Update 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": "update_webhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesExact native path parameter.
nameNoThe webhook name.
eventsNoAn array specifying which events are enabled for webhook notifications.
accountNoExact configured private account profile label; not a tenant or provider account ID.
confirmNoSet true only when the user asked for exactly this action.
payloadNoComplete native JSON body; do not mix with body flags or payload_file. Arrays use repeated JSON object flags or a whole native array in a private file.
post_urlNoThe url that the webhook will post to.
payload_fileNoAbsolute regular non-symlink JSON body file, at most 1 MiB. Cannot mix with payload/body flags.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv3.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / confirm / description
      Previous value: -"Must be true for the requested mutation or exclusive private output file."New value: +"Set true only when the user asked for exactly this action."
  2. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

D1.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is conveyed structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that – no mention of which fields are replaceable, whether omitted fields are cleared, or what happens to existing settings.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The single sentence is short but this reflects under-specification rather than conciseness. Nothing is front-loaded because there is nothing to front-load.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with 8 parameters, a nested payload object, mutually exclusive body options (payload vs payload_file), and no output schema, a three-word description is wholly inadequate. An agent cannot determine scope, replacement semantics, or the payload/body-flag conflict from this text.

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% across all 8 parameters, so the schema itself documents id, name, events, account, confirm, payload, post_url, and payload_file. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which is the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 Guidelines1/5

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

There is no guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool versus create_webhook, delete_webhook, or get_webhook, nor any prerequisite or context information. The agent is left to infer everything from the name alone.

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