create_webhook_bucketCreate an anonymous temporary webhook capture bucket. The returned bucket ID is a bearer capability and expires after 15 days of inactivity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | optional display name for the bucket |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| dashboard_url | No | ||
| webhook_endpoint | No | ||
| inactivity_policy | 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?
Beyond the sparse annotations (all false), the description discloses key behavioral traits: anonymity, temporariness, a bearer capability ID, and expiry after 15 days of inactivity. This adds important security and lifecycle context that annotations do not provide.
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 two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and includes essential behavioral notes (bearer capability, expiry) without unnecessary elaboration. Every sentence earns its place.
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 with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, identity of the returned ID, and lifecycle. The output schema handles return value details, so no critical information is missing.
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?
The only parameter, 'name', is fully documented in the schema with 'optional display name for the bucket'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies due to high schema coverage.
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 starts with 'Create an anonymous temporary webhook capture bucket,' which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_webhook_bucket, list_webhooks, etc., by indicating creation of a temporary capture bucket.
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 makes it clear the tool is for creating a bucket to capture webhooks, providing context for when it would be used. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the unambiguous create action and detailed resource type give sufficient guidance.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct: bucket lifecycle (create/delete/get/list/clear), response configuration, and webhook capture reading (get/list/wait) each target clear operations. There is minor potential confusion between get_webhook_bucket (bucket settings) and get_webhook (a capture), and clear_webhooks vs delete_webhook_bucket both involve deletion, but descriptions differentiate them adequately.
Tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create/delete/get/list/clear/configure/wait_for + webhook bucket or webhook). The pattern is mostly uniform snake_case with predictable verbs, though wait_for_webhook and configure_webhook_response deviate slightly from the simple get/list/create/delete set, and the 'webhooks' vs 'webhook_bucket' noun variation is somewhat mixed.
Eight tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range and every tool serves a distinct, meaningful purpose for a webhook testing service. The surface covers capture, bucket lifecycle, response configuration, and polling without redundancy or bloat.
The surface covers the full lifecycle: create/get/delete buckets, clear captures, configure responses, read/list/wait for captures. The main gap is an absent update capture or redaction toggle operation, but the core workflows for testing webhooks—configure, capture, inspect—are fully covered.