Skip to content
verify mcp Beta VerifyMCP is currently in beta. If you notice any issues, get in touch and we’ll put it right.

Webhook Toolkit

REMOTE · WEBHOOK-TOOLKIT.COM · 2 COMPONENTS

Webhook URLs for AI agents: receive, wait for, replay, sign and verify webhooks (Stripe, GitHub…).

0 this week 77 Trust /100

Last scanned (21 hours ago)

Scores higher than 69% of remote servers

Reachable. Last reached 4 Nov 2026.

Category Developer Tools

Trust breakdown (7 categories)

How this component scores in each security and reliability category. Every signal is checked automatically against the live server, and we only credit what we can confirm. How we score → Why this is hard to score →

Endpoint Security57
Transport & Reachability100
Schema Quality & AI Usability76
  • AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
  • Tool/resource definitions use about 1064 tokens (~106/item across 10 items; 10 tools + 0 resources), lean.Pass
  • Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management100
  • No destabilizing schema changes in the last 30 days.Pass
Tool Coverage82
  • 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
  • 47% of tool parameters carry a description.Partial
Tool Safety100
  • No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
  • We read all 10 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
  • An AI judge read all 11 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities100
  • Implements a supported MCP spec version (2025-11-25); the latest is 2026-07-28.Pass
Changelog

Every change we have recorded for this component, newest first. Security-relevant changes are always shown. ▲ marks a change for the better, ▼ a change for the worse; unmarked changes are neutral.

  • 18 Oct 26 0
    • Stability: 0.97 → pass security
  • 17 Oct 26 +1

    No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 93 to 97. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 28 days of observed history at the previous scan, 29 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.

  • 15 Oct 26 +1

    No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 87 to 90. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 26 days of observed history at the previous scan, 27 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.

  • 13 Oct 26 +1

    No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 80 to 83. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 24 days of observed history at the previous scan, 25 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.

  • 12 Oct 26 +1

    No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 73 to 80. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 22 days of observed history at the previous scan, 24 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.

  • 10 Oct 26 +3

    No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 53 to 73. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 16 days of observed history at the previous scan, 22 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.

  • 2 Oct 26 +1

    No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 43 to 47. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 13 days of observed history at the previous scan, 14 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.

  • 28 Sept 26 0
    • We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
Diagnostics

Diagnostic detail from the automated scan of this channel: what the scanner observed at each step, so you can see exactly where a check passed or failed. It is informational only and never changes the trust score.

Captured 4 Nov 2026 · Probed https://webhook-toolkit.com/mcp

TLS valid

Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .

Subject Issuer Valid from Valid until Key Signature Serial
CN=webhook-toolkit.com CN=YR2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US 8 Oct 2026 6 Jan 2027 RSA 4096 SHA256-RSA 5f1cde4fecaf9428eb7b475f1193aafc6b6
SANs: webhook-toolkit.com
CN=YR2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US (CA) CN=Root YR,O=ISRG,C=US 3 Sept 2025 2 Sept 2028 RSA 2048 SHA256-RSA 4ebd24947e24d394802d84a52fd5b319
CN=Root YR,O=ISRG,C=US (CA) CN=ISRG Root X1,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US 13 May 2026 2 Sept 2032 RSA 4096 SHA256-RSA f24b6d17f9d9ad7cb1c9fea78782699f

Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →

DNSSEC insecure

Validation of webhook-toolkit.com. — Not signed

Zone DS Keys Algorithms Outcome
. trust_anchor 20326, 38696 8, 8 Verified
com. present 19718 13 Verified
webhook-toolkit.com. absent Unsigned (proven) parent-signed NSEC/NSEC3 proves an unsigned delegation
Authentication No authorisation required

The endpoint answered without asking for a token. Anyone who knows the URL can reach it.

Result No authorisation required
HTTP status 200
Header Value
x-content-type-options nosniff
x-frame-options SAMEORIGIN
referrer-policy strict-origin-when-cross-origin
permissions-policy camera=(), microphone=(), geolocation=()

Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →

Transports 2 probes
Transport URL Outcome Status Location
streamable-http https://webhook-toolkit.com/mcp Verified 200
http (plaintext) http://webhook-toolkit.com/mcp HTTPS enforced 302 https://webhook-toolkit.com/mcp
MCP tools · 10 exposed · ~968 tokens

The tools this component advertises to a client, with an estimated token cost for each. Expand a tool to see its parameters and schema. The per-tool counts are indicative and are not scored directly; the schema's total context footprint is one signal in Schema Quality & AI Usability. A tool's description is untrusted text the model reads on every call, which is what makes this list a security surface and not just an inventory: how tool poisoning works →

Tool Tokens
create_webhook_url ~85

Create a public HTTPS URL that captures every request sent to it (any method, any sub-path). Use it when you need an endpoint to receive a webhook from a third-party service while building or debugging an integration. Returns the URL to configure in the service and a live inspector link for the human.

NameTypeReqDescription
namestring–Label, e.g. 'stripe-test'

No output schema declared.

No examples provided.

explain_webhook_request ~108

AI analysis of a captured request. mode=explain: who sent it, which event, key fields, how to verify the signature, pitfalls. mode=handler: complete receiving code that verifies the signature and handles this event. Included in paid plans; anonymous and free users get 3 trials.

NameTypeReqDescription
languagestring–Handler language (mode=handler). Default node.
modestring––
request_idstringyes–
tokenstringyes–

No output schema declared.

No examples provided.

get_webhook_request ~41

Return one captured request in full (headers, raw body, detected provider/event).

NameTypeReqDescription
request_idstringyes–
tokenstringyes–

No output schema declared.

No examples provided.

list_webhook_requests ~54

List the most recent requests captured by a webhook URL, newest first (summaries; use get_webhook_request for one full request).

NameTypeReqDescription
limitinteger–Default 10
tokenstringyes–

No output schema declared.

No examples provided.

list_webhook_urls ~27

List the webhook URLs of the account behind the API key (requires an API key).

Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.

No output schema declared.

No examples provided.

replay_webhook_request ~96

Re-send a captured request (same method, headers and raw body) to a PUBLIC URL and return the target's response. Localhost and private IPs are refused here: for localhost use the CLI (`npx webhook-toolkit replay`) or the local MCP server (`npx webhook-toolkit mcp`).

NameTypeReqDescription
request_idstringyes–
target_urlstringyes–
tokenstringyes–

No output schema declared.

No examples provided.

set_webhook_response ~80

Choose what the webhook URL answers to callers (status code, body, content type) — e.g. return 500 to test the sender's retries, or a specific JSON/XML body the service expects.

NameTypeReqDescription
bodystring––
content_typestring––
statusinteger––
tokenstringyes–

No output schema declared.

No examples provided.

sign_webhook_payload ~169

Build a webhook body with a VALID signature header for a provider, to test a handler's signature verification without triggering a real event. Providers: stripe, github, shopify, slack, twilio, mailgun. Returns the headers, the exact body to send and a ready-to-run curl command.

NameTypeReqDescription
event_typestring–Sample event to use when no payload is given, e.g. checkout.session.completed
payloadstring–JSON payload (or form fields as JSON for Twilio). Default: a realistic sample event.
providerstringyes–
secretstringyesThe webhook signing secret configured in your handler (whsec_… for Stripe)
target_urlstring–Handler URL (required for Twilio, whose signature covers the URL)

No output schema declared.

No examples provided.

verify_webhook_signature ~177

Check whether a webhook signature is valid for a raw body and a secret, and diagnose why it fails (wrong secret, whitespace, re-serialized JSON body, expired timestamp, wrong URL for Twilio). Providers: stripe, github, shopify, slack, twilio.

NameTypeReqDescription
providerstringyes–
raw_bodystringyesThe raw request body exactly as received
secretstringyes–
signaturestringyesThe signature header value (Stripe-Signature, X-Hub-Signature-256, X-Shopify-Hmac-Sha256, X-Slack-Signature, X-Twilio-Signature)
timestampstring–Slack only: X-Slack-Request-Timestamp
urlstring–Twilio only: the full URL Twilio called

No output schema declared.

No examples provided.

wait_for_webhook ~131

Block until the next request reaches a webhook URL (or the timeout elapses), then return it in full: method, path, headers, body, detected provider and event. Use right after triggering an action that should send a webhook. Call again with `after` set to the last request's createdAt to wait for the following one.

NameTypeReqDescription
afterstring–ISO timestamp: only requests strictly newer than this. Default: now.
timeout_secondsinteger–Default 30, max 50
tokenstringyesToken of the webhook URL (the part after /r/)

No output schema declared.

No examples provided.

Install

How do I install the Webhook Toolkit MCP server?

Webhook Toolkit is a hosted endpoint at https://webhook-toolkit.com/mcp, so there is nothing to install locally. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.

remote · webhook-toolkit.com

# add to Claude Code
claude mcp add --transport http the-kipdev-webhook-toolkit 'https://webhook-toolkit.com/mcp'
Common questions

What is the Webhook Toolkit MCP server?

Webhook Toolkit is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.THE-KIPDEV/webhook-toolkit. Webhook URLs for AI agents: receive, wait for, replay, sign and verify webhooks (Stripe, GitHub…). This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://webhook-toolkit.com/mcp).

Is the Webhook Toolkit MCP server safe to use?

Webhook Toolkit scores 77 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. That is a record of what we were able to check automatically, not an endorsement. The category breakdown on this page shows every signal behind the number, including the ones we could not confirm.

What tools does the Webhook Toolkit MCP server expose?

Webhook Toolkit exposes 10 tools: create_webhook_url, list_webhook_urls, wait_for_webhook, list_webhook_requests, get_webhook_request, and 5 more. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 968 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.

Does the Webhook Toolkit MCP server require authentication?

No. We connected to Webhook Toolkit without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.

Is the Webhook Toolkit MCP server still maintained?

Webhook Toolkit is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 4 November 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.