GitFlic MCP Server

gitflic_webhook_create

DestructiveIdempotent

Creates a webhook for a GitFlic project by specifying a target URL and one or more event names, returning the new webhook details.

Instructions

Create a webhook. Pass one or more event names.

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": {
      "project": "<project>",
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "gitflic_webhook_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`raw`	No	Return the full, un-slimmed GitFlic response for THIS call (no token compression). Use when the default slim view dropped a field you need.
`url`	Yes
`event`	No	Event name (e.g. PUSH). Pass array for multiple.
`active`	No
`project`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the definition should explain the consequences: webhooks deliver outbound HTTP payloads to an external URL, registration may require elevated project permissions, and repeated creation is idempotent per event/url. None of that is disclosed; the description only restates the create action, adding no context beyond the annotations.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Two short sentences with no filler and the action front-loaded, so nothing is wasted. However, the brevity is under-specification rather than economy, given a five-parameter destructive mutation.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a five-parameter, non-read-only, externally-reaching mutation with no output schema and 40% schema coverage, the description leaves too much implicit: no mention of the required target URL, the project scoping, the active flag, or what the response contains. An agent could not confidently construct a correct call from this alone.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 40%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters (url, project, active, raw). Instead it mentions only event names, and even that conflicts slightly with the schema, which types `event` as a string while the description says to pass an array for multiple events. The required url and project parameters are never explained.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Create a webhook"), which is unambiguous and cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling read/delete operations like gitflic_webhook_get and gitflic_webhook_delete. It stops short of differentiating when a webhook is the right construct versus other create tools, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

"Pass one or more event names" is a parameter instruction, not usage guidance. There is no statement of when to create a webhook, what prerequisites (project admin rights, target URL reachability) apply, or how this differs from gitflic_webhook_reveal_secret or list.

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

Deploy Server