Deletes a call webhook.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event_type | Yes | Use `post-call` to stop receiving post-call callbacks. Use `on-call` to stop receiving real-time call status updates. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| success | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action without mentioning side effects, irreversibility, required permissions, or response structure. The schema's parameter description hints at stopping callbacks, but that is not in the tool description itself.
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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded and easy to parse. While it is efficient, it is over-minimal and could incorporate more context without sacrificing conciseness, so it does not earn a perfect score.
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 deletion tool, the description is underdeveloped. It does not explain what happens upon deletion, whether the operation is idempotent, or what the output schema contains. Although the schema clarifies the parameter meanings, the overall tool contract is incomplete without behavioral context.
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?
The schema provides 100% coverage of the single parameter 'event_type' with detailed explanations for each enum value, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 uses the specific verb 'Deletes' and identifies the resource 'call webhook', making the action clear and distinguishing it from sibling tools like call_webhooks_create and call_webhooks_list. However, it does not elaborate on what a call webhook is or mention the event types affected, which slightly reduces clarity.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool or how it relates to alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or when to prefer other webhook tools. The only usage hints come from the parameter descriptions in the schema, which are not part of the tool's prose description.
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.
Tools are organized by resource with a clear action suffix (create/list/get/update/delete), making most purposes distinct. However, with 122 tools, some pairs like `cdrs_list` vs `cdrs_list_all` or `ten_dlc_brand_campaigns_list` vs `ten_dlc_campaigns_list` could cause confusion without careful reading of descriptions.
All tool names follow a consistent `resource_action` snake_case pattern (e.g., `api_keys_create`, `call_control_answer`, `ten_dlc_brands_list`). Verbs are standardized across the set, with only a few exceptions like `check` or `nudge` that still fit the verb-first style. No mixed casing or inconsistent separators.
At 122 tools, this is an extremely large surface that overwhelms the typical MCP agent's ability to select the right tool. Even though the count reflects the full Wavix API, the sheer number far exceeds the 50+ threshold for 'extreme mismatch' and is impractical for most use cases.
The tool set covers a broad range of communications features: numbers, calls, messages, billing, CDRs, sub-accounts, 10DLC compliance, speech analytics, and WebRTC. Missing operations like `sub_accounts_delete` or a 2FA service management endpoint are minor gaps that can be worked around via portal or other tools, but overall lifecycle coverage is strong.
