list_webhook_endpointsLists configured webhook endpoints, newest first, with cursor-based pagination so you can review and manage webhook destinations.
List webhook endpoints.
Newest first; pass next_cursor back as cursor for the next page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many objects to return, 1–100. Default 10. | |
| cursor | No | `next_cursor` from the previous page. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful traits beyond that: results are ordered newest first, and pagination is a cursor round-trip. It stops short of noting rate limits, filterability, or what an endpoint record contains.
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, zero filler, with the ordering and pagination constraint front-loaded where an agent will read it before calling. Nothing in it is redundant with the tool name alone.
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 two-optional-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers ordering and how to continue paging, which is the main thing an agent needs to iterate correctly. It omits only minor details such as what terminates the cursor chain or what fields an endpoint exposes.
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 there, including the 1–100 bounds on limit. The description's note about passing `next_cursor` back as `cursor` largely restates the schema's own wording, so it adds little beyond the baseline.
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 and resource ("List webhook endpoints"), so an agent knows immediately what it retrieves. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling create_webhook_endpoint / delete_webhook_endpoint, though the verb makes the distinction obvious in practice.
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?
Usage is only implied by the verb — the description never states when to call this versus create_webhook_endpoint or delete_webhook_endpoint, nor any prerequisites. The second sentence addresses pagination mechanics rather than selection guidance, leaving context to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.