Skip to main content
Glama

Delete Webhook

wa_delete_webhook
Destructive

[Not usable in this workspace: it acts on every number, and not every number's plan includes it — calling it returns a plan_required refusal; wa_get_plan lists each number's plan.] Stop delivering inbound messages to the configured endpoint. Messages keep arriving and stay readable through wa_list_messages; only the push stops.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNo
deletedYes
refusalNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / properties / refusal / properties / account_status / description
      Previous value: -"when the number is not working: its status — starting, not_running, whatsapp_down, suspended, pairing, unlinked or locked"New value: +"when the number is not working: its status — starting, not_running, whatsapp_down (telegram_down for a Telegram account), suspended, pairing, unlinked or locked"
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / refusal / properties / candidates
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "on an account_ambiguous refusal: the accounts to choose from — retry with one of these as account_id",
      +  "items": {
      +    "additionalProperties": false,
      +    "properties": {
      +      "account_id": {
      +        "description": "the id to retry with as account_id",
      +        "type": "string"
      +      },
      +      "name": {
      +        "description": "the account's WhatsApp display name",
      +        "type": "string"
      +      },
      +      "phone": {
      +        "description": "the account's phone number, E.164",
      +        "type": "string"
      +      },
      +      "status": {
      +        "description": "whether the number works right now — live, connecting, or why not, as wa_list_accounts reports it",
      +        "type": "string"
      +      }
      +    },
      +    "required": [
      +      "account_id"
      +    ],
      +    "type": "object"
      +  },
      +  "type": [
      +    "null",
      +    "array"
      +  ]
      +}
  3. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / refusal / properties / account_status
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "when the number is not working: its status — starting, not_running, whatsapp_down, suspended, pairing, unlinked or locked",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / refusal / properties / account_status_reason
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "the detail of account_status, e.g. no_egress, stopped, no_plan",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / refusal / properties / since
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "when the number stopped working, RFC3339, when known",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: what survives the operation ('messages keep arriving and stay readable through wa_list_messages'), and that calls fail with a plan_required refusal in this workspace. That is exactly the kind of blast-radius and failure-mode context annotations cannot express.

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?

Two sentences plus a bracketed caveat, all of which earn their place, and the blocking caveat is front-loaded so the agent reads it before anything else. The bracket is dense and could be split, but nothing is redundant.

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?

With no parameters, an output schema present, and destructive/read-only hints supplied by annotations, the description covers the only remaining unknowns: whether the tool is callable here, what failure looks like, and what data is preserved.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter detail.

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?

States a specific verb and effect: 'Stop delivering inbound messages to the configured endpoint,' which an agent can immediately map to the webhook resource. It does not explicitly name wa_enable_webhook / wa_set_webhook as the counterparts, but 'only the push stops' clearly separates it from message deletion.

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?

The bracketed note is an unusually explicit when-NOT-to-use: it says the tool is unusable in this workspace, that calling it yields a plan_required refusal, and routes the agent to wa_get_plan for per-number plans. The only gap is that no positive 'use this when...' alternative (e.g. wa_set_webhook to repoint the endpoint) is offered.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources