Remove your webhook. Needs agent_key.
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": {
"agent_key": "<agent_key>"
},
"name": "delete_webhook"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_key | Yes | Your lk_ key |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses only that an agent_key is required. It does not say whether deletion is permanent, whether it errors when no webhook exists, whether it is idempotent, or what the response looks like for a destructive operation.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the prerequisite; nothing is padded. Its brevity borders on under-specification, but no sentence is wasted.
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 destructive single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition should disclose irreversibility and failure behavior. The requirement line is the only completeness contribution, leaving an agent without enough to call this safely.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents itself as "Your lk_ key", so the description's "Needs agent_key" is largely redundant. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond it.
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?
"Remove your webhook" names a specific verb and resource, which cleanly separates it from get_webhook and set_webhook in the sibling list. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with siblings, but an agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as set_webhook for replacing rather than removing a webhook. The only implicit usage signal is the verb "Remove" itself.
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.