get_webhookRead one webhook capture scoped to its bucket. Sensitive headers and query values are redacted by default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bucket_id | Yes | ||
| webhook_id | Yes | ||
| max_body_bytes | No | maximum body bytes to return; defaults to 65536 and cannot exceed 262144 | |
| include_sensitive | No | return sensitive header and query values; defaults to false |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error | No | ||
| webhook | 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?
The description discloses that sensitive headers and query values are redacted by default, which adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not mention that include_sensitive can override this, but the schema covers that. No contradiction with annotations.
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 short sentences, front-loading the main action and adding a critical redaction detail. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.
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 read-only single-get tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a notable behavior (redaction). It omits details like the max_body_bytes limit or how to request sensitive values, but those are in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.
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 schema provides descriptions for max_body_bytes and include_sensitive (50% coverage). The description adds context that the webhook is 'scoped to its bucket,' helping clarify bucket_id, but webhook_id remains undocumented in both description and schema. It does not compensate fully for the missing required parameter semantics.
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 uses the verb 'Read' with a clear object: 'one webhook capture scoped to its bucket.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_webhooks by indicating single-item retrieval and mentions the redaction behavior, making the purpose explicit.
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 this tool is for reading a specific webhook capture within a bucket, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like list_webhooks or wait_for_webhook, nor does it state when to use one over the other. The usage context is somewhat obvious from the verb, but no explicit guidance or exclusions are provided.
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.