Delete an npm registry webhook by ID to stop event notifications. Provide the hook ID to remove the webhook and prevent future callbacks.
Delete a webhook by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Hook ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.12.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. The destructiveHint: true, idempotentHint: true, and readOnlyHint: false already convey the safety profile, and 'Delete a webhook' merely restates that. There is no mention of permanence, ownership requirements, or error handling, so the description fails to add incremental value.
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 a single, compact sentence: 'Delete a webhook by ID.' It is front-loaded with the action and resource, contains zero filler, and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the core action, and annotations supply crucial context about destructive and idempotent behavior. It lacks an explicit statement about return values or permanent effects, but these are not critical for this type of operation, making it nearly complete.
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?
The schema already documents the single 'id' parameter with a description 'Hook ID', and the description's phrase 'by ID' aligns with that. With 100% schema description coverage, the description does not need to compensate, and it adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a webhook') with a required identifier ('by ID'). It is unambiguously distinct from sibling hook tools like npm_hook_add, npm_hook_get, and npm_hook_update, which perform different operations on the same resource.
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 implies use when a webhook needs to be removed, but it does not explicitly provide context for when to use this tool versus alternatives like npm_hook_update (modifying) or npm_hook_get (reading). There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or situational guidance, so it earns a mid-range score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.