delega-mcp

delete_webhook

Delete a webhook by ID to remove an active lifecycle hook from the task management API. Admin-only action for cleaning up unused endpoints.

Instructions

Delete a webhook by ID (admin only)

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": {
      "webhook_id": "<webhook_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_webhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`webhook_id`	Yes	Webhook ID to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.19.0Sep 11, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / webhook_id / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  }
-]
```
- addedInput schema / properties / webhook_id / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "number"
+]
```
Addedv1.18.2Jul 29, 2026
Removedv1.13.1Jul 25, 2026
Addedv1.2.1May 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose one meaningful trait: an admin-level authorization requirement. It omits the traits that matter most for a destructive operation — whether the deletion is permanent, whether it breaks existing deliveries or inbound events, and what happens if the ID is not found.

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?

One short sentence with zero filler; the verb, resource, identifier, and permission constraint are all front-loaded.

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

Completeness3/5

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves the irreversibility and side-effect profile unstated, which is exactly the information an agent needs before deleting.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter ('webhook_id') is fully documented in the schema. The description's 'by ID' phrase restates rather than enriches that, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a webhook') plus the lookup key (ID), which cleanly separates it from create_webhook and list_webhooks in the sibling set. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it lands at clear-but-not-differentiating.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The '(admin only)' parenthetical is a genuine precondition that tells an agent whether it is even eligible to call this tool. However, there is no guidance on when to delete a webhook versus alternatives such as delete_ingress_source or delete_automation, so usage is only implied.

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