uploadcare_create_webhookCreates a webhook subscription (additive). The project will POST to target_url when the chosen event fires. REST API: POST /webhooks/.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event | No | Event to subscribe to. Default "file.uploaded". | |
| is_active | No | Whether the webhook is active. Default true. | |
| target_url | Yes | URL the webhook will POST to. |
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?
The description adds 'additive' context beyond the destructiveHint annotation, clarifying that it adds a new subscription rather than overwriting. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like duplicate creation behavior.
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 is very concise with two sentences, no extra words. It front-loads the core action and efficiently includes the REST API endpoint for context.
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?
For a simple creation tool, the description is largely complete. It covers the action and event triggering. However, it lacks mention of what the response contains (e.g., webhook ID) or error scenarios, which would be helpful.
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 100% for all three parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as format or constraints.
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 clearly states it creates a webhook subscription, specifies it's additive, and mentions the target URL behavior. It distinctly differentiates from sibling tools like list_webhooks and delete_file.
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?
The description implies usage for creating new webhooks but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_webhooks or delete_webhook. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action (e.g., create webhook vs. delete file vs. get group). No two tools overlap in purpose, making it easy for an agent to select the correct one.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: uploadcare_create_webhook, uploadcare_delete_file, etc. This predictability helps agents infer tool functions from names.
With 11 tools, the server covers key areas (files, groups, webhooks, project) without being overwhelming. The count is well-scoped for a file management service.
The tool set covers core file operations (get, delete, list, store, upload) but has gaps: missing update/delete for webhooks, create/delete for groups, and update for files. These omissions may force agents to use workarounds.