Update one or more Lever API-created webhooks via PUT /webhooks/.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | JSON body to send to the documented Lever endpoint. | |
| reason | No | Reason for this Lever write. | Requested through Lever Ops Control Plane. |
| confirm | No | Set false only when you explicitly want to block execution. | |
| dry_run | No | When true, preview the write without sending it to Lever. | |
| actor_id | Yes | Lever user ID associated with this action when needed. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the operation and endpoint, without disclosing whether updates are partial or full replacements, idempotency, required permissions, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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?
Single sentence, no fluff, front-loaded with the action and resource. It efficiently conveys the essential scope and method in a compact form.
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?
This mutation tool has a nested body parameter and no output schema, yet the description does not explain return values, error behavior, or how to construct a valid body. Given the complexity (5 params, nested object), the description is dangerously under-specified.
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?
Input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the endpoint reference; the body parameter remains vaguely defined (an arbitrary JSON object), and the schema's own description is equally generic.
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?
Description clearly states the action (update), resource (webhooks), and HTTP method (PUT), distinguishing it from create/delete/list webhook siblings. It does not explicitly name alternatives but the verb+resource makes the purpose unambiguous.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when updating is appropriate compared to deleting or recreating a webhook. The only subtle hint is 'Lever API-created,' but that is part of the target scope, not usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct resource-action combinations, but the sheer count (108) and the presence of closely related tools like list_opportunity_feedback / get_opportunity_feedback may cause occasional agent confusion.
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_*, get_*, list_*, update_*, delete_*, add_*, remove_*). Minor exceptions like apply_to_posting still fit the overall structure.
With 108 tools, the surface is excessively large for most agent workflows. Many tools could be merged or removed without losing essential functionality, leading to decision overload.
The tool set covers the full Lever API surface comprehensively, including opportunities, postings, requisitions, users, webhooks, templates, files, and compliance data, leaving no obvious gaps.