podio_delete_webhookPermanently deletes a Podio webhook by ID, stopping all event deliveries to its URL. Use when you need to remove a webhook and accept the action cannot be undone.
Permanently deletes a webhook by ID. This stops all event deliveries to the webhook URL. Cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hook_id | Yes | Webhook ID (from podio_create_webhook or podio_list_webhooks) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the operation is permanent, irreversible ('Cannot be undone'), and that it stops all event deliveries to the webhook URL. It does not cover permission/auth requirements or return behavior, but the destructive consequence is clearly surfaced.
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, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by consequences. Every sentence earns its place with no padding.
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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential context: permanence and the effect on event delivery. Only auth/permission expectations are unstated, a minor gap for this level of complexity.
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 100% and the schema already tells the agent the hook_id comes from podio_create_webhook or podio_list_webhooks. The description's 'by ID' adds nothing beyond the structured field, 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 ('deletes') and resource ('webhook') with the lookup key ('by ID'), making it immediately distinguishable from sibling podio_create_webhook and podio_list_webhooks. An agent can tell what the tool does 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?
Usage is only implied: the agent infers you call this when a webhook is no longer needed. There is no explicit when-to-use framing, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (e.g., that listing webhooks first is a way to obtain the ID). Adequate but with a clear gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.