Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Capes

Capes

by Dipeshpal
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

discord_delete_webhook

Destructive

Permanently deletes a Discord webhook to stop it sending messages; requires Manage Webhooks permission and accepts an optional audit log reason.

Instructions

Delete a webhook permanently. Needs Manage Webhooks.

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": {
      "webhook_id": "<webhook_id>"
    },
    "name": "discord_delete_webhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonNoReason shown in the server audit log (optional)
webhook_idYesWebhook ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by stressing 'permanently' (irreversibility) and stating the required permission (Manage Webhooks), which the annotations do not convey.

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 terse sentences with zero filler; the action and its permanence are front-loaded and the permission note follows. Every phrase earns its place.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description plus annotations and full schema coverage give an agent everything needed to call it correctly. Only the lack of any when-to-use context keeps it just short of fully complete.

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%, so both parameters (webhook_id and reason) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Delete a webhook' — with the 'permanently' qualifier making the operation unambiguous. It does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from the webhook siblings (list/create/send), but the destructive action is clear enough to select without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Needs Manage Webhooks' gives the prerequisite for use, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as discord_list_webhooks for auditing before deletion; usage is largely implied by the tool name.

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