Webhooks da RD Station Marketing. Ações:
list: lista webhooks configurados.
create: cria um webhook (passe 'webhook' com url, event_type, entity_type…).
delete: remove um webhook (requer uuid).
[Flattened action: create]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| webhook | No |
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 are all false, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions the creation action but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether existing webhooks are modified), authentication requirements, or error scenarios. No contradictions with annotations.
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?
The description includes extraneous information about list and delete actions, and the note '[Flattened action: create]' adds meta-complexity without value. It could be reduced to a single focused sentence: 'Creates a webhook. Provide a webhook object with url, event_type, and entity_type.'
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?
Given the lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the tool requires more context. The description does not explain success/error responses, required permissions, or the relationship between uuid and account parameters. Incomplete for reliable invocation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds some value by hinting that the 'webhook' parameter should contain fields like url, event_type, entity_type, etc. However, it does not explain the 'uuid' or 'account' parameters, leaving them ambiguous. The guidance on the webhook object is helpful but incomplete.
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 states 'create: cria um webhook (passe 'webhook' com url, event_type, entity_type…)' which clearly indicates the tool creates a webhook. It identifies the verb (create) and resource (webhook). However, the inclusion of list and delete actions in the same description for a flattened create tool adds slight confusion, but the core purpose is still clear.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools rdstation_webhooks_list and rdstation_webhooks_delete exist but are not referenced. The description does not specify when creation is appropriate or any prerequisites.
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.
The three rdstation_contacts_* tools and three rdstation_webhooks_* tools have identical descriptions listing the same set of actions, making them indistinguishable. An agent cannot determine which tool performs which action based on the descriptions alone.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: domain-specific tools use `rdstation_<noun>_<action>` (rdstation_contacts_get) but also `rdstation_<action>_<noun>` (rdstation_list_accounts), and some tools lack the domain prefix (authenticate, marketplace). The pattern varies across the set.
At 15 tools, the count is at the upper bound of reasonable scope. However, many tools are redundant (e.g., three tools for contacts actions) and could be consolidated, making the set feel heavier than necessary.
The RD Station domain covers contacts, webhooks, events, and accounts. However, contacts lack a delete action, and there is no tool to list contacts. The webhooks set is complete (create, list, delete) but missing an update. Minor gaps exist.