Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Argorant

by com.argorant
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Delete a webhook

argorant_delete_webhook
DestructiveIdempotent

Stop sending events to one webhook and remove it. Use it when the user no longer wants that address notified; to send other events, remove it and add a new one with argorant_create_webhook. Ask the user for explicit approval first, and set confirmed=true only with that yes. It is free. More in the docs at https://docs.argorant.com/docs/agents/tools#webhooks and https://docs.argorant.com/docs/guides/webhooks

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "webhook_id": "<webhook_id>"
    },
    "name": "argorant_delete_webhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmedNotrue only after the user's explicit yes to deleting this webhook
webhook_idYesThe webhook's id, from argorant_webhooks.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes beyond them by disclosing the human-approval gate and the exact semantics of the confirmed flag, plus that the operation is free. That is behavioral context the agent could not derive from the annotation block.

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?

The destructive action and the approval rule are front-loaded, and each sentence carries operational meaning. The two documentation URLs at the tail add length without adding much decision-relevant content for an agent.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a destructive two-parameter tool with rich annotations and an output schema, nothing essential is missing: purpose, destructive consequence, approval protocol, alternative tool, and cost are all covered.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are self-documenting, so the baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by reinforcing the gating semantics of confirmed ('only with that yes'), which is the one parameter where misuse is likely; webhook_id's provenance is left to the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a concrete verb+resource: 'Stop sending events to one webhook and remove it.' It is immediately distinguishable from argorant_create_webhook and argorant_test_webhook, which share the webhook resource.

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?

Gives the trigger condition ('when the user no longer wants that address notified') and names the alternative path explicitly: remove it and add a new one with argorant_create_webhook. It also adds a workflow constraint (ask for approval first) that governs when the call may be made.

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

All Argorant toolsInspect
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