Delete a webhook endpoint by id. Removes the registration and stops future deliveries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| webhook_id | Yes | The webhook id returned by register_webhook or list_webhooks |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already include destructiveHint=true. The description adds context by stating it removes the registration and stops future deliveries, giving concrete behavioral details beyond the annotations. No contradiction.
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?
Two short, direct sentences that front-load the action and effect. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 single-parameter destructive tool with annotations and schema covering safety and parameter semantics, the description is sufficient. It explains the effect without needing to describe return values. Slight lack of detail on error cases or reversibility, but these are not essential given the annotations.
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 input schema fully describes webhook_id and its origin (from register_webhook or list_webhooks). Schema description coverage is 100%, so the tool description adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 action (Delete), the resource (webhook endpoint), and the method (by id). It also explains the consequence (removes registration, stops future deliveries), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_webhook and test_webhook_delivery.
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 usage: when you need to permanently remove a webhook. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, though sibling tools like update_webhook are available. This is clear but lacks explicit exclusion/alternative 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.
Every tool targets a distinct action or resource. Groups like compels, lighting cues, webhooks, and account are clearly separated, and even similar tools (create_compel vs create_compel_from_music) have well-defined differences in input source.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., cancel_compel, launch_lighting_cue, register_webhook). No mixing of conventions or ambiguous verb choices.
With 30 tools, the server is above the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. While the scope includes multiple subdomains, the high number adds cognitive load and risks selection errors for an agent.
Core workflows are present (create, read, cancel, list, search, render), but missing update/delete for compels and media, and no way to modify render configuration beyond defaults.