contract-testing_delete_webhookDeletes a webhook by UUID to remove outdated or unwanted webhook configurations from contract testing.
Delete a webhook by UUID.
Toolset: Webhooks
Parameters:
webhookId (string) required: UUID of the webhook
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| webhookId | Yes | UUID of the webhook |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| success | Yes | The operation completed; the API returns no body. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.43.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "success": {
+ "const": true,
+ "description": "The operation completed; the API returns no body.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "success"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.40.0v0.34.0v0.27.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the core safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as whether deletion is permanent, what permissions are required, or what happens if the UUID does not exist.
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 short and front-loaded with the core action. The repeated 'Toolset' and 'Parameters' sections are somewhat redundant given the schema, but they do not obscure the essential 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?
For a simple single-parameter delete tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It could say more about irreversibility or required permissions, but the destructive hint already signals risk, and the schema fully documents the only input.
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 the single parameter is fully described in the schema. The description repeats that webhookId is a required UUID but adds no syntax, format, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for a fully documented schema.
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: 'Delete a webhook by UUID.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as create_webhook, update_webhook, get_webhook, and list_webhooks. An agent can identify the operation and target 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The delete operation is implied by the verb, but there is no discussion of when deletion is appropriate or whether related webhook operations should be used instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.