Modify an existing Oura webhook subscription to change its callback URL, event type, data type, or verification token. Requires OURA_CLIENT_ID and OURA_CLIENT_SECRET.
Update an existing webhook subscription. Requires OURA_CLIENT_ID and OURA_CLIENT_SECRET environment variables.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The webhook subscription ID | |
| data_type | No | ||
| event_type | No | ||
| callback_url | No | ||
| verification_token | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the auth requirement (OURA_CLIENT_ID/SECRET env vars), but says nothing about what happens to unspecified fields, whether updates are partial or full replacements, reversibility, or rate limiting for a mutation tool.
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?
Two short sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the core action. Efficient, though it lacks any structural detail beyond the credential note.
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?
A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, 5 params at 20% coverage, and nested objects. The description doesn't state that `id` is required, doesn't explain updatable fields, and offers nothing on partial vs full update semantics.
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 only 20% (only `id` is documented). Five parameters include nested objects (data_type, event_type) with no description, and callback_url/verification_token are bare. The description provides no parameter information to compensate for the low coverage.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: 'Update an existing webhook subscription.' Clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_webhook_subscription, delete_webhook_subscription, and renew_webhook_subscription. Does not restate the name tautologically.
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, no alternatives named, no prerequisites stated beyond the credential requirement. Among siblings that include create/delete/renew/get/list for the same webhook resource, no routing help is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.