Delete one of your webhook subscriptions by ID so it stops receiving events. This cannot be undone. Webhooks cannot be edited: to change the URL or events, delete the webhook and add a new one with create_webhook. Get the ID from list_webhooks. Returns a confirmation, or an error when no webhook has that ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| webhook_id | Yes | The webhook ID to delete (from list_webhooks) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value by stating the operation is irreversible, that webhooks are immutable, and that a missing ID produces an error rather than a silent no-op.
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?
Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the irreversibility warning, then the alternative path and the ID source. No filler.
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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, irreversibility, the alternative workflow, ID provenance, and the return/error behavior. Nothing material is missing.
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, including its '(from list_webhooks)' provenance. The description only repeats that the ID comes from list_webhooks, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Delete one of your webhook subscriptions by ID') plus the effect ('stops receiving events'). This clearly separates it from create_webhook and list_webhooks among the siblings.
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?
Explicitly states the alternative workflow (webhooks cannot be edited; delete and use create_webhook instead) and where to obtain the ID (list_webhooks). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternatives routing an agent needs.
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.
