tickerbot_delete_webhook
Delete a webhook subscription by id. Use after listing webhooks when the user wants to remove an alert.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Webhook id (looks like `wh_…`). |
mcp-server
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the destructive nature (delete) but lacks details on reversibility, permissions, or side effects. Adequate for a simple delete operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: first states purpose, second provides usage context. No wasted words; front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient. It specifies what and when, meeting expectations without needing to detail return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with parameter 'id' described as 'Webhook id (looks like `wh_…`)'. The description adds 'by id' but no new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Delete a webhook subscription by id' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling delete tools like delete_custom_signal or delete_universe.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Use after listing webhooks when the user wants to remove an alert,' providing clear context and scenario for use, though no explicit when-not-to-use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target distinct resource-action pairs, but get_ticker and get_ticker_history overlap (both return a single historical row via asof), and the four subscribe_* tools are thin wrappers around create_webhook, creating some ambiguity. Detailed descriptions mitigate but don't eliminate confusion.
Naming Consistency4/5
The tickerbot_ prefix and verb_noun pattern are consistent (create_*, get_*, list_*, delete_*, update_*), but subscribe_* deviates from create_* for webhooks, and scan/search_news are bare verbs. Overall predictable.
Tool Count2/5
35 tools is excessive for the domain; many could be consolidated (e.g., four subscribe_* variants into a single parameterized webhook creator, get_ticker/get_ticker_history into one). The breadth of data types justifies some volume, but this exceeds the 25-tool threshold for coherence.
Completeness5/5
Full lifecycle coverage for universes, custom signals, and webhooks; extensive read-side for tickers, series, bars, events, news, and scans. No critical dead ends: anything creatable can be updated/deleted/tested, and data lookups have appropriate query tools.