get_webhook_eventRetrieve a specific webhook event by its ID to inspect payload details, status, or troubleshoot delivery issues.
Rate limit: 100 requests / 10 seconds per shop. See Rate limiting.
Get a single webhook event by ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Exact private shop profile label; not a provider identity or authorization proof. | |
| webhook_event_id | Yes | Native webhookEventId |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a concrete rate limit (100 requests / 10 seconds per shop) and links to the rate-limiting guide, which is a meaningful behavioral constraint beyond what annotations provide.
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 definition is very concise, using only two sentences. However, it front-loads the rate-limit note ahead of the tool's primary purpose, which slightly weakens immediate scannability.
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 read-by-ID tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It states purpose and rate limit, but omits any explicit usage context relative to siblings, leaving a small gap for an agent choosing between this and list_webhook_events or get_webhook.
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%, so both parameters (account and webhook_event_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the phrase 'by ID', which merely restates the required parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb (Get) and resource (a single webhook event by ID), making the core action unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings like get_webhook (configuration) or list_webhook_events, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not point to alternatives like list_webhook_events for multiple events or get_webhook for the webhook definition itself. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'by ID'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.