Delete the notification webhook (free)
Removes the calling wallet's webhook registration. Notifications keep flowing to the user's other channels (push, SMS, Telegram, in-app); only the webhook deliveries stop. The account owner is notified of the removal.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deleted | No | False when there was no registration to delete. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / auth_tokenRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Laso credential. Only if the MCP connection has no Authorization header.",
- "type": "string"
-}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "deleted": {
+ "description": "False when there was no registration to delete.",
+ "type": [
+ "boolean",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "deleted": {
- "description": "False when there was no registration to delete.",
- "type": [
- "boolean",
- "null"
- ]
- }
- },
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description correctly aligns. It adds valuable context: that other notification channels continue, and the account owner is notified. No contradiction.
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 description is concise and well-structured: a clear title line, then a brief explanation of scope and side effects. Every sentence adds value, and the key point (only webhook stops) is front-loaded.
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?
The tool is simple with no parameters and an output schema exists (not shown but indicated). The description covers the main behavioral implications: removal scope and notification to owner. It could mention the return value or idempotency implications, but overall it's complete for an agent.
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?
There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description doesn't need to explain params; it correctly focuses on behavior. This is a baseline of 4 for parameter-free tools.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'delete' and resource 'webhook', and specifies it removes the calling wallet's webhook registration. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like register_webhook and get_webhook by focusing on removal.
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?
The description provides clear context on when to use it: to remove the webhook for the calling wallet. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives, but the distinction from get/register webhook is implicit.
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.