SeaWeb

delete_disruption_webhook

DestructiveIdempotent

Travel Product B — delete ONE webhook subscription you registered. Pass the SAME tenant_id you registered it under — ownership is proven against that namespace. Idempotent: an unknown, already-deleted, or not-yours id returns deleted=false rather than an error. Returns {subscription_id, deleted}. Needs an authenticated key.

    Registration was gated and listable but had no teardown: a webhook
    created here could not be removed from any surface, kept receiving
    signed POSTs after the account stopped paying, and — because an
    account may hold only one webhook URL — blocked the browser from
    creating monitors at a different URL with no way out. Deletion stays
    OPEN to a lapsed account for the same reason it is open on standing
    queries: gating teardown strands live delivery the owner can no
    longer stop.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tenant_id`	No
`subscription_id`	Yes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond annotations, it discloses idempotent behavior (returns deleted=false for unknown/already-deleted/not-yours), ownership verification, return shape, and practical consequences for lapsed accounts. This is comprehensive and adds significant value.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Structured into a direct usage paragraph and a brief rationale paragraph. Every sentence adds value, though the second paragraph is a bit explanatory; still well-organized and not verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers behavior, auth, idempotency, ownership, return values, and business rationale. Without an output schema, this description provides all needed context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has no descriptions, but the description explains tenant_id as the namespace proving ownership and subscription_id as the target. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter details.

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?

The description clearly states it deletes one webhook subscription the user registered, specifying the identity requirements and return value. It distinguishes itself from siblings like register_disruption_webhook and list_disruption_webhooks.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on ownership (pass same tenant_id), authentication (needs authenticated key), and idempotency behavior. While it doesn't name alternative tools explicitly, the context makes when to use this clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All SeaWeb tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

There is notable overlap among search, search_web, search_restaurants, and search_salons, as well as between filter_restaurants/filter_salons and search with constraints. However, descriptions clarify the intended vertical or corpus, and entity getters are distinct. The overlap is manageable but could cause misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names mostly follow a get_/list_/search_/register_/delete_/submit_/vote_ pattern in snake_case. Minor deviations like 'recall', 'remember', 'research', and 'travel_health' are less predictable but still readable. Overall consistent and clear.

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is on the heavy side for a single MCP server, exceeding the typical well-scoped range. While the server covers multiple subdomains (search, travel disruptions, memory, feedback, research), the sheer number may overwhelm agents and suggests potential consolidation.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers core workflows: search and entity retrieval for restaurants/salons, disruption monitoring with standing queries and webhooks (register/list/delete), research submission/polling, and memory/feedback mechanisms. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no cancel for research jobs, no explicit entity list endpoint), but these are workable and do not break typical agent tasks.

Resources

Need Help?