Elimina un webhook registrado por su ID.
Args:
id: ID del watch a eliminar.
Returns:
Confirmación de eliminación.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a destructive action ('Elimina') and states the success return ('Confirmación de eliminación'), but it does not describe error behavior, irreversibility, or side effects such as the webhook no longer receiving events.
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 compact and well-structured with short Args/Returns sections. The core behavior is front-loaded and every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.
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 simple one-parameter deletion tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential invocation details: the required ID, the action, and the return value. It loses a point for not situating the tool among related watch-management siblings or describing possible error outcomes.
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 0%, so the description compensates by defining id as 'ID del watch a eliminar.' This sufficiently clarifies the single integer parameter, though it does not explain how to obtain the ID, such as through list_watches.
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 the exact operation ('Elimina un webhook') and the identifier used to select the target ('por su ID'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like watch_hipocampo and remove_watch_dir, which handle registration or directory watches rather than deleting a webhook by ID.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_watches, remove_watch_dir, or watch_hipocampo. The only implied usage is deleting a registered webhook by ID, but no prerequisites or exclusion criteria are mentioned.
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.