get_webhookRetrieve one webhook endpoint's URL, subscribed events, and active status by endpoint ID. Excludes the signing secret.
One webhook endpoint: its URL, events and whether it is active. Never its signing secret.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| webhookEndpointId | Yes | The webhook endpoint id, from list_webhooks. |
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, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond those: the signing secret is never returned, which sets expectations about what the response will and won't contain. It stops short of noting error cases like unknown or unauthorized ids.
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 terse sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and closed with the key negative constraint. Every clause carries information with zero padding.
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?
With no output schema and a single documented parameter, the description adequately conveys the returned shape (URL, events, active) and the notable omission (signing secret). It is complete enough to call the tool correctly, though it could mention error behavior for missing endpoints.
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 the single parameter already documents its source ('from list_webhooks'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the full burden.
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 names a specific resource (one webhook endpoint) and enumerates the salient fields it returns (URL, events, active status), so an agent knows this is a single-endpoint fetch. It does not explicitly name the sibling verbs (list_webhooks vs update_webhook) to distinguish use, but the 'one endpoint' scoping makes the get-vs-list distinction clear enough.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives such as list_webhooks for enumeration. The only routing hint is in the schema's parameter text ('from list_webhooks'), which the description itself does not leverage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.