Skip to main content
Glama

Social Fetch

by io.github.social-freak-ltd

Send a test webhook event

webhookEndpoints_test

Send a realistic per-source sample event to a webhook endpoint right now — a live, synchronous delivery test.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
contextYesDescribe the user's underlying goal in one sentence — not the tool you are calling.
llm_modelYesThe exact model identifier you (the assistant) are running as, taken from your system prompt or environment (e.g. "claude-opus-4-8", "gpt-5.2"). Used for analytics only. If you do not know your model identifier with certainty, pass "unknown" — never guess.
sampleTypeNo
conversation_idNoEcho the conversation_id from the server's previous response. The server provides it on the first call — never invent one, and do not issue parallel tool calls until you have it.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / context
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Describe the user's underlying goal in one sentence — not the tool you are calling.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / conversation_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Echo the conversation_id from the server's previous response. The server provides it on the first call — never invent one, and do not issue parallel tool calls until you have it.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / llm_model
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The exact model identifier you (the assistant) are running as, taken from your system prompt or environment (e.g. \"claude-opus-4-8\", \"gpt-5.2\"). Used for analytics only. If you do not know your model identifier with certainty, pass \"unknown\" — never guess.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "id"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "context",
+  "llm_model"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as non-read-only, so mutation is expected. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying that this is a live, synchronous delivery test rather than a dry-run or queued operation. It does not discuss downstream side effects on the receiving endpoint, but the 'live delivery' wording communicates the central risk.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the action, scope, realism, timing, and delivery mode in compact form. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness2/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what a successful test returns or how the result is reported, but it does not. It also leaves two key parameters ('id', 'sampleType') semantically unexplained, making it insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without external assumptions.

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?

Schema coverage is only 60%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented 'id' and 'sampleType' parameters. The phrase 'per-source sample event' weakly hints at 'sampleType', but it never explains what values are valid or that 'id' likely identifies the webhook endpoint. The description adds little meaning 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 states a specific action ('Send'), a clear resource ('a webhook endpoint'), and a distinctive purpose ('realistic per-source sample event', 'live, synchronous delivery test'). It meaningfully distinguishes this from the other webhookEndpoints_* tools by emphasizing testing rather than CRUD or redelivery.

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 makes the usage context clear: use this when you want to immediately test a webhook endpoint with a realistic sample event. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'right now / live / test' framing is enough to signal when 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.

All Social Fetch 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool is clearly scoped to a specific platform and action (e.g., facebook_post_get vs instagram_post_get). Descriptions explicitly differentiate similar tools across platforms, and within-a-platform tools like tiktok_search_videos_list vs tiktok_search_hashtag_list have clear disambiguation notes.

Naming Consistency5/5

All 167 tools follow a strict `platform_resource_action` pattern (e.g., youtube_video_comments_list). No mixing of styles—snake_case throughout, with consistent verb ordering (get, list, search, etc.).

Tool Count2/5

The server has 167 tools, which is far beyond the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. While the broad multi-platform scope justifies many tools, this extreme number makes the tool surface overwhelming and difficult for an agent to navigate efficiently.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of platforms and operations including profile retrieval, post/video fetching, comments, search, transcripts, and ad library access. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no Facebook events or LinkedIn messaging), but the surface is comprehensive for a read-only data aggregation use case.

Resources