Unregister a webhook endpoint by id.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "delete_webhook"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a destructive unregister operation but does not state whether existing deliveries stop immediately, whether the action is reversible, what happens if the id is unknown, or what permissions are required.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The action and entity are stated immediately, which is appropriate for a one-parameter tool.
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?
The tool is simple, but it is a destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema. The description should disclose more about the effect of unregistering, error behavior, and the meaning of the id. As written, it is too thin for an agent to invoke confidently without additional assumptions.
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%, and the single parameter is only a required string named id. The description says "by id" but adds no format, source, or validation details beyond the schema. It does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.
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 states a specific verb and resource: "Unregister a webhook endpoint by id." It clearly distinguishes the action from register_webhook and list_webhooks by using the destructive verb "unregister." It does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.
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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent can infer that this removes a webhook, but nothing states whether it should be used instead of updating a webhook or when deletion is appropriate.
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.