delete_webhookDeletes a webhook endpoint to stop event delivery immediately and discard pending deliveries, preventing further callbacks to an obsolete or unwanted URL.
Delete a webhook endpoint. It stops receiving events at once, and its pending deliveries are dropped.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| webhook_id | Yes | Webhook id, from list_webhooks or add_webhook. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds real consequence detail: delivery stops immediately and pending deliveries are dropped. That is exactly the kind of post-conditions annotations cannot express. It stops short of stating irreversibility or auth requirements.
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 short sentences, zero filler, and the consequence of the operation is front-loaded right after the action statement.
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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the key post-condition an agent needs. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether the deletion is permanent or what error occurs for an unknown id.
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 single parameter is 100% documented in the schema, including its UUID format and provenance ('from list_webhooks or add_webhook'). The description adds nothing beyond that, 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 endpoint'), which is unambiguous against siblings like add_webhook or edit_webhook. It does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, so it falls just short of a 5.
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 by the destructive verb; there is no explicit guidance on when to delete versus edit_webhook (e.g., to temporarily disable delivery) or any prerequisites. An agent can infer intent but receives no routing help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.