get_webhookRetrieve a webhook configuration by ID to inspect or manage shop webhook settings.
Rate limit: 100 requests / 10 seconds per shop. See Rate limiting.
Get a webhook
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Exact private shop profile label; not a provider identity or authorization proof. | |
| webhook_configuration_id | Yes | Native webhookConfigurationId |
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a concrete rate limit (100 requests / 10 seconds per shop), which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations, but it omits other behavioral details such as error handling or auth requirements.
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 short and places the rate limit first, which is useful. However, the 'Get a webhook' line is redundant with the title and adds no information, making the description under-specified rather than optimally concise.
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 simple get-by-ID tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the structured fields carry most of the invocation burden. Still, with no output schema and no description of return values or error behavior, the definition is only minimally complete and leaves gaps an agent might hit.
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%, and both parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 description is essentially 'Get a webhook', which restates the tool name/title rather than describing the specific resource or operation. It does not explain what a webhook configuration is or distinguish this tool from siblings like get_webhook_event or list_webhooks.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives or prerequisites are named. The rate limit is an operational constraint, not usage guidance for selecting this tool over another.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.