AgentWallet MCP Server

delete_paywall

Permanently removes an x402 paywall by ID so its access URL returns 404. Use it to retire paid access rules for content or endpoints managed through AgentWallet.

Instructions

Delete an x402 paywall. The access URL will return 404 after deletion.

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": {
      "paywall_id": "<paywall_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_paywall"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`paywall_id`	Yes	Paywall ID to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.14.8Oct 27, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / paywall_id / maximum
```
Added value: +9007199254740991
```
- addedInput schema / properties / paywall_id / minimum
```
Added value: +-9007199254740991
```
First observedv1.7.3Mar 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load. It usefully discloses the post-deletion consequence (404 on the access URL), but says nothing about irreversibility, whether payment history is retained, required permissions/ownership, or behavior when the paywall_id doesn't exist.

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 destructive consequence front-loaded immediately after the purpose.

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?

A destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema needs more safety framing than two sentences provide — irreversibility and permission requirements are unstated. The core action and its effect are, however, conveyed clearly.

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% on the single paywall_id parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no meaning beyond that baseline, which is acceptable for a one-parameter tool.

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+resource ('Delete an x402 paywall') and adds the observable outcome ('access URL will return 404 after deletion'). The resource is distinct from siblings like delete_wallet or update_paywall, though no explicit sibling routing is given.

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 statement of when to use this versus update_paywall or how to recover/recreate after deletion. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Delete', with no prerequisites or exclusions.

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