Preview exact webhook removal in inFlow Inventory by ID, with dry-run safeguards before any deletion is applied.
Preview exact webhook removal. Apply remains blocked until delete/readback semantics are canary-proven.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dryRun | No | ||
| webhookId | Yes | ||
| previewToken | No | ||
| idempotencyKey | No | ||
| expectedDesiredHash | No | ||
| expectedSemanticHash | No | ||
| expectedWriteShapeHash | No | ||
| expectedEntityTimestamp | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.0-alpha.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a real behavioral trait: this is a preview/dry-run and apply is blocked pending canary validation, meaning it will not perform a destructive action. But the "canary-proven" phrasing is jargon, and nothing is said about permissions, the previewToken flow, or the hash parameters.
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 with the preview constraint front-loaded; there is little wasted text. The second sentence is dense jargon but not padded.
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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, a two-sentence description that omits the token/hash workflow is far from complete. An agent lacks the information needed to construct a valid apply call.
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 tool has 8 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. It never mentions webhookId, dryRun, previewToken, idempotencyKey, or any of the four expected*Hash parameters, leaving the entire parameter contract undocumented.
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 verb ("Preview") and resource ("webhook removal"), giving a rough sense of the action. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling delete_webhook, and "exact" is vague. An agent cannot tell why it would call remove_webhook versus delete_webhook from this text.
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 second sentence implies that applying is currently blocked, but it never states when an agent should use this tool instead of delete_webhook or set_webhook. There is no explicit usage context or exclusion, only an opaque status remark.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.