list_webhooksList webhook capture summaries in newest-first order using cursor pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | number of summaries to return, from 1 to 50 | |
| cursor | No | opaque cursor returned by a previous call | |
| bucket_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error | No | ||
| has_more | No | ||
| webhooks | No | ||
| next_cursor | No | ||
| dashboard_url | 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?
Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value by specifying newest-first ordering and cursor pagination behavior. It also calls out 'summaries', implying the payload differs from full webhook details, which is useful context beyond metadata.
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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the key action and adds relevant details about ordering and pagination without any fluff.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, ordering, and pagination. It could mention use cases relative to siblings but is sufficiently complete for a list operation.
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 coverage is 67% (limit and cursor have descriptions, bucket_id does not). The tool description does not further explain bucket_id or add semantics beyond the schema's existing descriptions, so it does not significantly compensate for the gap.
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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'webhook capture summaries', with ordering (newest-first) and pagination method. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_webhook (single webhook) and clear_webhooks (clearing captures).
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 indicates this is for listing summaries, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases. Sibling tools like get_webhook could be used for individual details, but the description does not point to this, leaving some ambiguity about when to use which.
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.