form4api-mcp

list_webhooks

Read-only

Instructions

List webhook subscriptions owned by the authenticated API key. Returns active webhook subscriptions under the authenticated API key, plus any the system auto-disabled after sustained delivery failures (disabledReason "delivery_failures") — those stay visible with disabledAt/disabledReason set so you can see why delivery stopped and reverse it with POST /v1/webhooks/{id}/enable. Subscriptions you deleted yourself (disabledReason "user_deleted") are never returned here again, and neither are legacy rows disabled before this field existed (disabledReason null) — both are permanently gone from this list. Each entry: subscription id, target URL, subscribed event types, creation date, active flag, disabledAt/disabledReason (both null while active), and the isReadOnly flag. Does NOT return the signing secret again (it's shown once, at creation, by POST /v1/webhooks) — regenerate by deleting and recreating the subscription if it's lost. Requires a valid X-Api-Key (401 without one).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_webhooks"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: which rows are permanently excluded, that the signing secret is never returned (shown once at creation), and that a valid X-Api-Key is required (401 otherwise). This is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure annotations can't carry.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The purpose is front-loaded and every sentence conveys real information, but the text is dense for a zero-param list tool and repeats 'disabledReason' multiple times, making it slightly longer than necessary.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description compensates fully by enumerating the returned entry fields (id, target URL, event types, creation date, active flag, disabledAt/disabledReason, isReadOnly) and the exclusions. An agent has everything needed to interpret results and know the auth requirement.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter syntax to add. The description instead documents the returned fields, which is useful but belongs to output/behavioral rather than parameter semantics.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'List webhook subscriptions owned by the authenticated API key.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_webhook_events or the many financial-data tools, so an agent can identify the tool's role without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It explains the exact scope of what is and isn't returned (active, auto-disabled, user-deleted, legacy rows) and even points to the remediation path (POST /v1/webhooks/{id}/enable). It doesn't name a sibling alternative, but for a zero-param listing tool there is no obvious competing tool, so guidance is effectively complete.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.