Skip to main content
Glama

xpayr_get_webhook_config

Retrieve the merchant webhook callback URL, masked HMAC-SHA256 signing secret, and subscribed payment lifecycle events to verify webhook integration settings.

Instructions

Inspect the merchant webhook callback URL, masked HMAC-SHA256 signing secret, and subscribed payment lifecycle events (payment.pending, payment.completed, payment.failed, payment.expired).

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": "xpayr_get_webhook_config"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does deliver one genuinely valuable behavioral fact: the signing secret is returned masked rather than in plaintext. However, it says nothing about authorization requirements or what happens when no webhook endpoint has been configured yet, which are the main failure modes for a config-inspection call.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence leading with the verb and then listing exactly what is returned, including the concrete event identifiers. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, nothing that could be cut.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description effectively substitutes for the missing output contract by enumerating the returned fields and enumerating the four lifecycle event values. It falls short only on error/empty-state behavior and auth expectations.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no per-parameter meaning to add and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misdescribes the empty input schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

A specific verb ('Inspect') paired with a clearly enumerated set of returned resources: callback URL, masked HMAC-SHA256 signing secret, and subscribed event types. It implicitly contrasts with the write sibling xpayr_set_webhook_endpoint through the read-only 'Inspect' verb, but never names or explicitly distinguishes it, keeping it just 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Usage is only implied by the fact that the tool returns the current webhook configuration, so an agent must infer that it should call this before modifying the endpoint with xpayr_set_webhook_endpoint.

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