test_webhookUse to POST a signed webhook.test event to the project's webhook URL. Available on free and yearly. Do not use this to inspect past deliveries — that is REST GET /api/projects/:id/webhook-deliveries. Fails if no webhook URL and secret are set.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | Project (website) id from list_projects, create_project, or bootstrap_site. |
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?
Annotations only say the operation is not read-only and not idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the event is signed, the tool fails if no webhook URL and secret are configured, and it is available on free and yearly plans. This gives useful operational context without needing to list every side effect.
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?
Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: the action, plan availability, an exclusion, and a failure condition. The most important action is front-loaded and there is no filler.
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 simple single-parameter tool, the description covers the action, the precondition for failure, and an alternative. It does not describe the success response, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation keep this from being a significant gap.
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?
There is only one parameter, project_id, and the schema already fully documents it with a clear description referencing where the id comes from. The tool description does not need to add parameter detail, so the high schema coverage sets a baseline of 3.
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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'POST a signed webhook.test event to the project's webhook URL.' It also clearly distinguishes itself from webhook-delivery inspection, so an agent can tell this tool apart from related operations.
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?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use to POST...') and when not to use it ('Do not use this to inspect past deliveries — that is REST GET...'). It also notes the failure precondition, which helps the agent decide if this tool is appropriate.
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 are clearly separated by resource and action (get_client vs list_clients vs create_client), and the descriptions explicitly warn against misuse. However, update_account and update_team both cover renaming a workspace/team, and get_account and get_project both return plan/usage/branding, creating a couple of genuinely confusing boundaries.
The set overwhelmingly follows the snake_case verb_noun pattern: archive_client, create_form, get_submission, list_projects, rotate_project_inbox, test_webhook, etc. Minor deviations exist: bootstrap_site uses 'site' instead of 'project', update_team vs update_account introduces noun inconsistency, and upsert_project_webhook uses a different verb than the update_* family.
With 27 tools, the server exceeds the 25-tool threshold that signals a too-large surface for an MCP server. While the broad scope (clients, projects, forms, submissions, teams, billing, webhooks) explains the count, there are redundant near-duplicates like update_account/update_team and bootstrap_site overlapping with multiple create tools, making the set feel bloated rather than curated.
The lifecycle coverage for clients, projects, and forms is solid with create, read, list, update, and archive operations. However, there is no unarchive (explicitly noted as unavailable), no submission management beyond read (no delete/export/update), and no webhook delivery history, leaving notable dead ends and gaps in the core workflow.