Skip to main content
Glama

furrow-forms

by com.furrowforms

Upsert project webhook

upsert_project_webhook
Idempotent

Use to set or replace the project webhook URL. Available on free and yearly. A signing secret is generated once if the project has none. Forms inherit this unless webhook_url_override is set. Do not use this for a one-off delivery — call test_webhook.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesProject (website) id from list_projects, create_project, or bootstrap_site.
webhook_urlYesPublic https endpoint that receives a signed JSON POST per clean submission. Null disables it.
webhook_secretNoHMAC-SHA256 secret for X-Furrow-Signature. Omit to have one generated and returned.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals important side effects: a signing secret is generated only once if absent, and forms inherit it unless webhook_url_override is set. These behaviors are not visible in the schema description and help predict the call's consequences. It does not contradict the readOnlyHint=false or idempotentHint=true annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is three tight sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the exclusion placed immediately after. Every sentence contributes either to correct invocation, plan eligibility, or behavioral context. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 3-parameter tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, the main alternative, plan availability, and a non-obvious side effect. The schema already documents the parameters, so the description is complete enough for correct tool selection and invocation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful meaning around webhook_secret by explaining auto-generation and form inheritance, which helps an agent decide whether to omit or provide that parameter. It does not fully explain every edge case, such as rotating an existing secret, but it adds value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'set or replace the project webhook URL.' It also explicitly contrasts the tool with test_webhook, so an agent can distinguish it from the most relevant sibling without inspecting schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a direct 'Use to...' instruction, states the plan availability, and provides an explicit exclusion: 'Do not use this for a one-off delivery — call test_webhook.' This is concrete when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All furrow-forms toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

Resources