User Intuition

Delete Webhook by URL (Deprecated)

delete_webhook

Destructive

Deprecated compatibility tool. List webhooks, then use delete_webhook_by_id so deletion works through clients that omit DELETE request bodies. A repeated deletion returns 404.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hook_url`	Yes
`organization_id`	No	Organization for this operation and billing. Use list_organizations to choose an active membership.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes	Webhook deletion acknowledgement.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 22, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / organization_id / description

Previous value: -"Platform admins only: select an organization for this operation. Required when changing another organization’s study or using its wallet."New value: +"Organization for this operation and billing. Use list_organizations to choose an active membership."

Changed1 schema field changedOct 1, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / organization_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Platform admins only: select an organization for this operation. Required when changing another organization’s study or using its wallet.",
+  "maxLength": 128,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed4 schema fields changedSep 30, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

addedOutput schema / properties / result / propertyNames
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

First observedSep 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the tool is deprecated and a repeated deletion surfaces a 404 rather than silently succeeding. It does not add anything on permissions or irreversibility, so 4 rather than 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences with the deprecation front-loaded, which is exactly the right first impression. The middle sentence is slightly tangled in its clause ordering but every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the destructive/non-idempotent profile. What remains unexplained is the format/validity of hook_url and that the deletion is irreversible, which are minor but real gaps for a destructive tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50% and hook_url has no description anywhere, so the agent must infer it is the URL identifying the webhook. The description partially compensates by pointing at list_webhooks as the source of that value. organization_id is documented in the schema itself, so the description adds little there.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description reads as a deletion tool ("A repeated deletion returns 404") and the title supplies the "by URL" scope, so with the name the operation is identifiable. It also distinguishes itself cleanly from delete_webhook_by_id. It never states plainly what it deletes and by which identifier, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It names the exact preferred workflow: list webhooks, then use delete_webhook_by_id, and gives the condition that makes this tool the fallback (clients that omit DELETE request bodies). That is explicit when-to-use, when-to-prefer-an-alternative guidance, which is the top of this scale.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All User Intuition tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?