Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

OrgLines

by com.orglines
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Delete webhook

delete_webhook
Destructive

Delete one of the caller's outbound webhooks by id. Only a webhook in the caller's own workspace is reachable. Destructive — runs only after you confirm via confirm_action. CONFIRMATION: this tool is PROPOSED, never performed directly. You get status='confirmation_required' with an action_id and a plan_token, and the write happens only after confirm_action.

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": "delete_webhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
spaceNoWhose webhooks: the active company workspace (default) or 'personal' — the caller's own space, where 'intake.capture.created' (something sent to the OrgLines Telegram bot; body has ids only — read it with intake_get_capture) fires.
webhook_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, yet the description adds behavior the annotations cannot convey: the two-phase confirmation protocol, the exact intermediate response (status='confirmation_required' plus action_id and plan_token), and the fact the write is deferred until confirm_action runs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the confirmation constraint. The confirmation behavior is stated three times in slightly different words ('runs only after you confirm', 'PROPOSED, never performed directly', the status/action_id explanation), so one sentence could be trimmed.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the confirmation response shape. What remains unstated is what a successful post-confirmation deletion returns and whether the operation is recoverable, but the definition is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The schema documents only the space enum; webhook_id has no schema description beyond its integer-or-string type. The description repeats 'by id' without explaining the dual type, where an id is obtained, or how 'space' changes which webhook is targetable, beyond a general workspace-reachability remark.

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 specific verb and resource (delete an outbound webhook), the identifier used (by id), and the ownership scope (the caller's own workspace). This is enough for an agent to distinguish it from create_webhook and from the many other delete_* siblings operating on unrelated resources.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives clear usage context: it is destructive and must be routed through confirm_action, and only webhooks in the caller's workspace are eligible. It does not spell out failure cases (unknown id, webhook in another workspace) or when to prefer a different tool, but the primary workflow is unambiguous.

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

All OrgLines 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