Delete a specific webhook within the Shelly ecosystem by providing its ID. This confirmed and audited action allows you to cleanly remove unwanted triggers.
Delete a webhook by id. Requires confirm:true. Audit-logged.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| device | Yes | ||
| confirm | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description adds two behavioral facts beyond them: a mandatory confirmation gate (``confirm:true``) and that the action is audit-logged. It does not state whether deletion is reversible or what happens on confirm=false, but the added context is substantive.
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?
Three short sentences, zero filler, with the action, the confirmation requirement, and the audit side effect all front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations already carry the destructive profile. Together with the confirm gate and audit-logging disclosure this is nearly complete, but the unexplained required ``device`` parameter and unstated reversibility keep it from being fully self-sufficient.
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 must carry parameter meaning and only partially does: it explains ``id`` (the target webhook) and the ``confirm`` gate (must be true). The required ``device`` parameter is left entirely unexplained in both schema and description, which is a real gap for a 3-param tool.
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 (Delete) and resource (webhook) plus the addressing key (``id``), so an agent can immediately distinguish it from shelly_webhook_list/create/update. It does not explicitly name a sibling or scope constraint, but the verb+resource pair is unambiguous.
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?
It states a concrete invocation prerequisite — ``confirm:true`` must be supplied — which tells the agent the call will not proceed without it. There is no explicit when-not guidance or mention of an alternative path (e.g., webhook_list to find an id), but the usage context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.