Remove the webhook URL from an endpoint. PATs are preferred and require mcp:endpoints:write or mcp:*.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The unique slug identifier for the endpoint | |
| apiKey | No | Legacy endpoint API key (x402_*) | |
| accessToken | No | Your dashboard MCP personal access token (sgl_pat_*) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the core action and mentions permission requirements, but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, reversible, idempotent, or what happens to the endpoint after removal. The auth note is useful, but significant behavioral context is missing for a mutation tool.
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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the main action and follows with a relevant auth note. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the primary action and auth requirements, but lacks details such as return values, whether the webhook must exist, or the effect on the endpoint. For a simple mutation with no annotations, this is a moderate gap, but not as severe as more complex tools.
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 input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, but it doesn't need to since the schema is sufficient.
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 action: 'Remove the webhook URL from an endpoint.' This is a specific verb (remove) and resource (webhook URL), and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like set_webhook (which adds/updates) and delete_endpoint (which removes the entire endpoint).
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 auth context ('PATs are preferred and require mcp:endpoints:write or mcp:*') but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer this over delete_endpoint or set_webhook, nor does it state any exclusions or preconditions. Usage is implied by the name, not explicitly stated.
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.
Most tools pair a clear verb with a distinct resource noun, so endpoints, agents, datasets, campaigns, products, and vault operations are generally easy to separate. The main risk is the repeated request_*_payment / *_with_payment pairs and the two create_*_with_payment tools, which are only distinguishable by reading descriptions carefully.
The dominant pattern is verb_noun snake_case, such as list_my_endpoints, update_campaign, and finalize_agent_registration, and the payment/request pairs are consistently named. The vault_* tools use a namespace prefix rather than verb-first names, and vault_how_to_backup breaks the action-oriented convention, so it is not perfectly uniform.
48 tools is a very large MCP surface, well beyond the 25-tool threshold where selection becomes a serious burden. Even though the server spans multiple domains, the count feels excessive for a single agent-facing tool set and should likely be split by domain.
The core endpoint, agent, marketplace, and payment flows are well covered, including creation, updates, stats, and two-phase x402 purchases. However, there is no create_product or delete_product, campaigns lack delete, and there is no way to list previously purchased datasets, leaving notable lifecycle gaps.