PingRoom

Create Webhook

create_webhook

Create an incoming webhook for a room the account owns. The bound account must be Pro. Returns the secret trigger URL — treat it as a credential.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`icon`	No	A v3 room-icon catalog id, e.g. "bell". Call list_room_icons to discover the valid ids.
`name`	Yes	Webhook name (shown to the owner).
`color`	No	Hex color, e.g. "#e33122".
`sound`	No	Canonical sound id, e.g. "ting". Omit for the room default.
`title`	No	Optional push title used when the webhook fires.
`enabled`	No	Whether the webhook is active. Defaults to true.
`message`	No	Optional default push body (max 120 characters in private rooms, 160 in public rooms).
`invite_code`	Yes	Room invite code.
`action_number`	No	Quick-action slot to attribute fires to. Auto-assigned if omitted.
`cooldown_seconds`	No	Minimum seconds between fires. Defaults to 5.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes	An incoming webhook. `webhook_url` embeds the secret — treat it as a credential.

Schema Changelog

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

Changed4 schema fields changedSep 1, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / result / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

changedOutput schema / properties / result / description

Previous value: -"Purpose-built PingRoom result with credential and account fields removed."New value: +"An incoming webhook. `webhook_url` embeds the secret — treat it as a credential."

addedOutput schema / properties / result / properties

Added value: +{
+  "action_number": {
+    "type": [
+      "integer",
+      "null"
+    ]
+  },
+  "color": {
+    "type": [
+      "string",
+      "null"
+    ]
+  },
+  "cooldown_seconds": {
+    "type": [
+      "integer",
+      "null"
+    ]
+  },
+  "enabled": {
+    "type": "boolean"
+  },
+  "icon": {
+    "type": [
+      "string",
+      "null"
+    ]
+  },
+  "id": {
+    "format": "uuid",
+    "type": [
+      "string",
+      "null"
+    ]
+  },
+  "message": {
+    "type": [
+      "string",
+      "null"
+    ]
+  },
+  "name": {
+    "type": [
+      "string",
+      "null"
+    ]
+  },
+  "sound": {
+    "type": [
+      "string",
+      "null"
+    ]
+  },
+  "title": {
+    "type": [
+      "string",
+      "null"
+    ]
+  },
+  "webhook_url": {
+    "type": [
+      "string",
+      "null"
+    ]
+  }
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / result / type
```
Added value: +"object"
```

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations provide no safety hints beyond all-false flags, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds genuine value: the return value is a secret credential ('treat it as a credential') and the account-tier requirement is disclosed. No contradiction with annotations — 'Create' is consistent with readOnlyHint=false.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: verb+resource first, then the ownership/Pro constraints, then the credential warning. Every clause earns its place and the most security-critical information is placed last for emphasis.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 10-parameter write tool with an output schema, the description appropriately focuses on what the schema cannot express: ownership requirement, Pro-tier requirement, and the sensitive nature of the returned trigger URL. Minor gaps remain (e.g., what happens on duplicate names or whether creation is immediately active), but the essentials for correct invocation are covered.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all 10 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but at full coverage the schema does the heavy lifting, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('Create an incoming webhook') and adds a scoping condition ('for a room the account owns'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like update_webhook, delete_webhook, and list_webhooks. The create-vs-mutate-vs-delete distinction is unambiguous even without opening the schema.

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 gives clear contextual prerequisites: the room must be owned by the account and the account must be Pro. This tells the agent when it is permitted to call the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the operational contrast with the webhook siblings is evident from the tool name itself.

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

All PingRoom tools Inspect

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

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Several tools overlap in purpose: broadcast, trigger_quick_action, create_handoff, ask_question, request_approval, and live_status can all deliver a ping or prompt to a human, and the wait_for_* family has five similar long-polling variants. The detailed descriptions help, but the update_quick_action/update_quick_actions pair and the activate_agent_inbox/handoff flow still create real selection ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set overwhelmingly follows verb_noun conventions like create_, get_, list_, update_, delete_, and wait_for_, making the naming predictable and searchable. A few outliers — broadcast, connection_info, and live_status — break the pattern, and the live_status/get_live_status pair is less obvious than it could be.

Tool Count2/5

40 tools is a heavy surface for one MCP server, even with a broad feature set spanning rooms, webhooks, quick actions, questions, approvals, handoffs, attachments, and live status. The count feels inflated by many narrow wait/get variants that could be consolidated or exposed through fewer, more composable operations.

Completeness3/5

Core workflows around questions, approvals, handoffs, webhooks, quick actions, and attachments are mostly covered with create/read/list/wait operations. However, the room lifecycle is missing obvious delete or leave operations, and approvals lack list/cancel capabilities, leaving notable gaps for an agent managing those resources.

Resources

Need Help?