webhook_deleteDelete a webhook to stop its event delivery immediately. Requires organization ID and webhook ID.
Delete a webhook. The target stops receiving events immediately.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| webhookId | Yes | The webhook id (see webhook_list). | |
| organizationId | Yes | The organization id. Use organization_list to find it. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description usefully adds that event delivery ceases immediately, but omits whether deletion is reversible, what happens on a missing/invalid id, or whether it errors when called twice.
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?
Two tight sentences with the action first and the side effect second; no filler or redundancy.
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?
For a two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and fully covered annotations, the description communicates the core effect and consequence. It would be complete with a note on irreversibility and error behavior for unknown ids.
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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (webhookId, organizationId) have informative descriptions pointing to webhook_list and organization_list. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a webhook') plus the immediate consequence ('The target stops receiving events immediately'). It is unmistakably distinct from webhook_update or webhook_rotate_secret, though it does not explicitly name siblings.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives (e.g., disabling vs deleting), and no prerequisites such as required permissions or org scoping mentioned. The agent must infer all routing decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.