Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ChatPush MCP Server

ChatPush MCP Server

Official
by ChatPush
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Delete webhook

delete_webhook
DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes a webhook by ID so it stops receiving notifications. Use it to remove outdated endpoints and prevent further event delivery.

Instructions

Delete a webhook by ID. The webhook will stop receiving notifications.

Tool call template

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"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesWebhook ID to delete.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaning by disclosing the post-deletion effect ('will stop receiving notifications'), which goes beyond the schema and annotations. It doesn't cover irreversibility, but that is partially implied by destructiveHint.

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 short sentences with zero redundant wording. The action is front-loaded, and the behavioral consequence is the only extra detail, which earns its place.

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?

For a one-parameter delete tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is complete. It explains the effect of the operation, and the sibling set provides enough surrounding context. No return value is expected (no output schema), so nothing is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the id parameter already documented as 'Webhook ID to delete.' The description's 'by ID' adds no new semantic detail. A 3 is the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Delete a webhook by ID') and adds a concrete consequence ('will stop receiving notifications'). It is unambiguously distinct from sibling tools like get_webhook, update_webhook, and create_webhook.

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?

The purpose is self-evident: use this tool when you want to remove a webhook by its ID. It doesn't explicitly name exclusions or alternatives, but for a single-purpose delete operation the context is clear enough. A mention of 'use update_webhook to temporarily disable' would have pushed it higher.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools