Remove a webhook. Takes the id and the signing secret from registration, only the holder of the secret can remove it
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Webhook id from registration, 8 hex characters. Example: 3f9a0c1b | |
| secret | Yes | Signing value from registration, 32 hex characters. Example: 00112233445566778899aabbccddeeff |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| removed | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / id / descriptionAdded value: +"Webhook id from registration, 8 hex characters. Example: 3f9a0c1b"Input schema / properties / secret / descriptionAdded value: +"Signing value from registration, 32 hex characters. Example: 00112233445566778899aabbccddeeff"Input schema / x-lexicon / bundleSha256Previous value: -"670f7504e3de5031beccee25a2d24e4515f68b893295f6d5b0d3a0665498b2c9"New value: +"25cc80db6d8e9eac73d47a50f7ad6333a21f1972d008a8fed0159de8bfb4b519"Input schema / x-lexicon / bundleSha256Previous value: -"e5b4290024a229f2bdf97f8fc6a0079c3fe13b77267f41fdcffeb8b26aa1c41e"New value: +"670f7504e3de5031beccee25a2d24e4515f68b893295f6d5b0d3a0665498b2c9"Input schema / x-lexicon / versionPrevious value: -"0.1.0"New value: +"0.2.0"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / x-lexicon / bundleSha256Previous value: -"a1c2e10fd3177d6b4d59ca78693e8fb36880165cf0f735f680dd86a510411178"New value: +"e5b4290024a229f2bdf97f8fc6a0079c3fe13b77267f41fdcffeb8b26aa1c41e"Input schema / x-lexicon / bundleSha256Previous value: -"1eeb782ee15fe69fc80776948e0556fa6b795e210e6305935b2c97b73d955cda"New value: +"a1c2e10fd3177d6b4d59ca78693e8fb36880165cf0f735f680dd86a510411178"Input schema / x-lexicon / bundleSha256Previous value: -"c014292cad7497ce9fd68c33345ac32cb42b672c8e77d6c749c26e162cc207e4"New value: +"1eeb782ee15fe69fc80776948e0556fa6b795e210e6305935b2c97b73d955cda"Input schema / x-aliasesAdded value: +{
+ "id": [
+ "Id",
+ "ID",
+ "@id"
+ ],
+ "secret": [
+ "Secret",
+ "secrets"
+ ]
+}Input schema / x-lexiconAdded value: +{
+ "bundleSha256": "c014292cad7497ce9fd68c33345ac32cb42b672c8e77d6c749c26e162cc207e4",
+ "name": "ChainHelix Agentic Lexicon",
+ "resolve": "lexicon_resolve",
+ "spec": "lexicon_spec",
+ "version": "0.1.0"
+}Input schema / x-vocabAdded value: +{
+ "id": "data.id",
+ "secret": "common.secret"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so safety traits are covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: the authorization requirement that the caller must hold the signing secret from registration.
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?
Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and a relevant constraint appended. No wasted text, though phrasing ('Takes the id and the signing secret') is slightly informal.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the destructive/idempotent profile. The description adds the auth requirement, leaving this well-covered for a simple two-param destructive tool.
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 description coverage is 100%, with both params documented including format and examples, so the schema carries the semantics. The description reinforces the source of the values ('from registration') but adds no syntax 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+resource ('Remove a webhook') that clearly distinguishes it from the register/status siblings by operation type. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, but the removal intent is unambiguous.
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?
Explains that the id and signing secret come from registration and that only the secret holder may remove, which is useful calling context. However, it gives no explicit comparison to webhook_register/webhook_status or when-not-to-use guidance.
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.