webhook-mcp-server

Provides an MCP (Model Context Protocol) server that wraps webhook.site capabilities: creating and managing webhook endpoints (HTTP), and retrieving captured HTTP requests, emails, and DNS lookups. It also exposes tools for waiting/polling for new events and for generating common security test payloads (e.g., SSRF/XSS canary-style artifacts) and exporting captured data.

Evaluated Apr 04, 2026 (41d ago)
Homepage ↗ Repo ↗ DevTools mcp webhooks testing debugging http email dns security-testing automation python
⚙ Agent Friendliness
51
/ 100
Can an agent use this?
🔒 Security
43
/ 100
Is it safe for agents?
⚡ Reliability
26
/ 100
Does it work consistently?

Score Breakdown

⚙ Agent Friendliness

MCP Quality
78
Documentation
70
Error Messages
0
Auth Simplicity
45
Rate Limits
10

🔒 Security

TLS Enforcement
70
Auth Strength
40
Scope Granularity
25
Dep. Hygiene
55
Secret Handling
30

Strengths: uses HTTPS-oriented webhook.site endpoints by design (webhook URLs are shown as https://). Risks/unknowns: the README does not document how webhook.site credentials are provided or protected within the MCP server process, nor does it describe access control for created tokens/captured data. Security/bounty tooling implies users may generate OOB payloads; this increases the importance of external authorization controls and careful handling of captured sensitive data. Dependency hygiene and CVE status cannot be assessed from provided content; only minimal dependencies are listed (mcp, httpx).

⚡ Reliability

Uptime/SLA
0
Version Stability
60
Breaking Changes
0
Error Recovery
45
AF Security Reliability

Best When

You want an agent-friendly interface (MCP tools via stdio) to quickly create webhook.site endpoints and programmatically capture/inspect resulting HTTP/email/DNS events for testing and debugging.

Avoid When

You require explicit, documented security controls for access to stored captures; you also want formal pagination/idempotency/retry guarantees beyond what’s documented in the README.

Use Cases

  • MCP-based webhook testing and debugging (create webhook, wait for requests, inspect captured data)
  • Monitoring and searching captured HTTP requests (filters, exports, statistics)
  • Email capture/testing (create temp inboxes, extract links)
  • DNS lookup capture/testing
  • Webhook-driven API testing (custom responses, CORS/timeout behaviors)
  • Security/bounty workflows that need out-of-band (OOB) callback/canary-style observation
  • Load testing via batch request sending and subsequent data export

Not For

  • Production handling of sensitive inbound traffic as a general webhook receiver (it’s a testing/inspection tool)
  • High-assurance security testing without appropriate legal authorization and safeguards
  • Environments needing strong enterprise authentication/authorization controls at the MCP layer (not evidenced in README)

Interface

REST API
No
GraphQL
No
gRPC
No
MCP Server
Yes
SDK
No
Webhooks
Yes

Authentication

OAuth: No Scopes: No

The README describes usage via MCP (stdio) but does not document authentication mechanisms for the MCP server or webhook.site integration (e.g., API keys, tokens, or how credentials are supplied). Authentication details appear to be handled indirectly via webhook.site tokens/endpoints rather than MCP-layer auth documentation.

Pricing

Free tier: No
Requires CC: No

Pricing for the underlying webhook.site service is not provided in the README content shown.

Agent Metadata

Pagination
none
Idempotent
False
Retry Guidance
Not documented

Known Gotchas

  • Because the MCP server likely wraps an external SaaS (webhook.site), agent workflows may depend on webhook token state and eventual arrival of requests/emails/DNS lookups; the README emphasizes waiting/polling but does not document timeout/retry semantics or race conditions.
  • Security-related helper tools (SSRF/XSS/canaries) can generate payloads that may cause unintended network interaction; agents should still enforce strict safety/authorization checks externally.
  • The README documents many tools, but it does not show formal tool schemas, parameter constraints, or example error responses; agents may need to handle unexpected tool failures or external-service errors.

Alternatives

Full Evaluation Report

Comprehensive deep-dive: security analysis, reliability audit, agent experience review, cost modeling, competitive positioning, and improvement roadmap for webhook-mcp-server.

AI-powered analysis · PDF + markdown · Delivered within 30 minutes

$99

Package Brief

Quick verdict, integration guide, cost projections, gotchas with workarounds, and alternatives comparison.

Delivered within 10 minutes

$3

Score Monitoring

Get alerted when this package's AF, security, or reliability scores change significantly. Stay ahead of regressions.

Continuous monitoring

$3/mo

Scores are editorial opinions as of 2026-04-04.

8642
Packages Evaluated
17761
Need Evaluation
586
Need Re-evaluation
Community Powered