replay_request
Destructive
Replay a captured webhook to the user's localhost (the tunnel CLI must be running).
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| subdomain | Yes |
pipehero
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructive and non-idempotent behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds the destination ('user's localhost') and the required tunnel CLI, which are not in the annotations. It doesn't detail potential side effects, but the key prerequisites are covered.
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 a single, focused sentence with no redundant information. It front-loads the action and includes a relevant parenthetical about the CLI requirement.
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?
The description covers the core purpose and a prerequisite, making it minimally usable. However, it lacks detail on parameter meanings (id/subdomain) and doesn't describe expected outcomes or side effects, especially given the destructiveHint. It's adequate for a simple tool but leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero description coverage, and the description does not elaborate on the 'id' or 'subdomain' parameters. While one could infer that id identifies the webhook and subdomain the tunnel, it's not explicitly stated. This is a significant gap given the low schema coverage.
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 clearly states the tool's function: replaying a captured webhook to the user's localhost. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_requests and send_test_webhook by specifying the replay action and destination. The prerequisite about the tunnel CLI adds useful scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: the tool is for replaying a captured webhook to localhost, and it notes a key prerequisite ('tunnel CLI must be running'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as comparing to send_test_webhook for new webhooks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose: retrieving a specific request, listing requests, listing tunnels, replaying a captured webhook, sending a test webhook, and two separate configuration toggles. No semantic overlap exists, so an agent can reliably choose the right tool.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., get_request, list_tunnels, set_long_requests). The naming is uniform and predictable, making it easy to infer functionality from the name alone.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for webhook tunnel management. Each tool addresses a clear need without redundancy or bloat, striking a good balance between functionality and simplicity.
Completeness4/5
The surface covers the core lifecycle: viewing tunnels, inspecting webhooks, replaying requests, generating test events, and configuring timeout/WebSocket behavior. Minor gaps include lack of tunnel creation/deletion or request cleanup, but these appear to be handled externally (via CLI) and do not hinder primary workflows.