delete_webhookStop sending to an endpoint and forget it, along with the record of what we sent there. To pause one instead, set enabled to false. That keeps the secret, so you do not have to change your code to turn it back on. Needs an API key and a paid plan. Costs no credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The endpoint's id, as create_webhook returned it. |
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, and the description goes well beyond them by specifying exactly what is destroyed: the endpoint and the record of prior deliveries. It also adds auth requirements (API key, paid plan) and cost behavior (no credits), which 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The destructive effect is front-loaded, followed by the alternative, the rationale for that alternative, then prerequisites and cost. Every sentence carries distinct, actionable information with no padding.
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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the destruction semantics, the safer alternative, auth/prereq constraints, and cost profile. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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?
With 100% schema coverage and only one parameter, the schema already documents id thoroughly. The description adds no format or sourcing detail for id, and its mention of 'enabled' refers to a different tool's parameter, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Stop sending to an endpoint and forget it') and immediately distinguishes its scope from the pause/disable path, which is the main sibling ambiguity with update_webhook. An agent can tell what this destroys versus what update_webhook would do without opening either 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?
Explicitly gives the alternative and the condition that selects it ('To pause one instead, set enabled to false'), plus prerequisites (API key, paid plan) and cost (no credits). It never names the sibling tool update_webhook, so an agent must infer which tool carries the 'enabled' flag, which is a small remaining gap.
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.