List Webex webhooks to inspect existing integrations and retrieve their configuration details, with a configurable maximum result count.
List webhooks.
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": "webex_list_webhooks"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and supplies none. It says nothing about scope (all organization webhooks vs. user-scoped), pagination, ordering, required auth, or what happens when there are no webhooks.
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?
Brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness; a two-word sentence cannot be front-loaded because there is no content to front-load. Nothing is wasted, but nothing is contributed either.
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 tool with one undocumented parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition should explain result limits and return shape. Instead it provides a bare label, leaving the agent unable to predict what a call returns.
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 0% and the single parameter "max" is never mentioned in the description. The agent gets no explanation of whether "max" caps returned results, whether pagination exists, or what the default of 100 implies.
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?
"List webhooks." restates the tool name webex_list_webhooks almost verbatim, adding no scope, no filtering context, and no differentiation from siblings such as webex_get_webhook or webex_create_webhook. It is a tautology rather than a specification of what the tool does.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., using webex_get_webhook for a single webhook), and no prerequisites. The agent must infer entirely from the tool name that this is the enumeration tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.