Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
webex-mcp

webex-mcp

by yuryev89
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

webex_get_webhook

Retrieve a Webex webhook's details by its webhook ID. Use it to inspect a registered webhook's configuration and status.

Instructions

Get webhook by ID.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "webhookId": "<webhookId>"
    },
    "name": "webex_get_webhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
webhookIdYesWebhook ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it says nothing about whether the call is read-only, what auth or scopes are needed, or what happens when the ID is invalid or the webhook does not exist. For a lookup tool with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful gap.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves no room for the context the tool lacks elsewhere.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is structurally simple (one required string, no nesting, no output schema), so the minimal description is close to adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least indicate what a returned webhook contains or how a missing ID is reported.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is self-explanatory ('webhookId'), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's phrase 'by ID' adds nothing beyond the schema and gives no hint about where the ID comes from (e.g., the id field returned by webex_list_webhooks).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get webhook') and scopes it to retrieval by ID, which implicitly distinguishes it from list_webhooks, create_webhook, update_webhook, and delete_webhook in the sibling set. It stops short of naming any sibling or clarifying that exactly one webhook is returned, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of webex_list_webhooks (when the ID is unknown) or which ID form is expected. The agent must infer all routing decisions from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools