lulu-print-mcp

Delete webhook

delete_webhook

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a webhook subscription by ID to stop event notifications for an endpoint you no longer use; this action cannot be undone.

Instructions

Delete a webhook subscription. This cannot be undone.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_webhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Webhook id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is structured data. "This cannot be undone" restates destructiveness but adds nothing about side effects an agent would care about, such as whether pending submissions are discarded or whether in-flight deliveries are cancelled.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the action stated first and the irreversibility warning immediately after. Nothing in the text could be removed without losing content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter destructive deletion with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers what to call and that it is permanent. It falls short of complete only by omitting scope effects on dependent objects such as existing webhook submissions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single required "id" string carrying a pattern, so the schema fully documents the parameter. The description adds no meaning beyond it, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ("Delete a webhook subscription") and the noun matches the delete_webhook name, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, contrast this with siblings such as update_webhook or list_webhooks, leaving differentiation to the name alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite or permission notes, and no mention of update_webhook as an alternative for callers who only want to disable or modify a subscription. The only guidance-like content is the irreversibility warning, which is a caution rather than a usage rule.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.