GitFlic MCP Server

gitflic_webhook_list

Read-only

List webhooks for a GitFlic project and filter results by event, limit, or fields to inspect webhook subscriptions and configuration.

Instructions

List webhooks for a project.

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>"
    },
    "name": "gitflic_webhook_list"
  }
}

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.
`event`	No	Keep only webhooks subscribed to this event (e.g. MERGE).
`limit`	No	Return at most N.
`fields`	No	Return only these top-level fields (plus id keys), narrowing the response further.
`project`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of pagination behavior, default limits, what the slim response contains, or whether webhook secrets are included (a relevant concern given the existence of gitflic_webhook_reveal_secret).

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity edges toward under-specification for a tool with five parameters.

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?

With rich annotations and 80% schema coverage, a minimal description is defensible for a simple list operation, and no output schema means return values needn't be explained. However, nothing is said about pagination defaults, the slim-vs-raw response distinction, or whether secret material appears in results, which an agent would want before calling.

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 80%, so the schema itself documents raw, event, limit, and fields well; the only undocumented parameter is project, whose meaning is implied by 'for a project' in the description. The description adds no filtering or formatting detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when coverage is high.

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 plus resource plus scope: 'List webhooks for a project.' The verb distinguishes it from gitflic_webhook_get, _create, and _delete, which are obviously different operations, but the description never names those siblings or clarifies list-vs-get boundary. Clear purpose, no sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'List' and the project scope; there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over gitflic_webhook_get (single webhook retrieval) or when filtering by event is appropriate. An agent can infer the obvious case but gets no guidance on exclusions or alternatives.

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

Deploy Server