delete_webhookPermanently remove a webhook from LightCMS by providing its ID. Use this to stop webhook deliveries when an integration is retired or no longer needed.
Permanently delete a webhook.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Webhook ID,required |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v7.3.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The word "Permanently" reinforces irreversibility, which adds a little context, but the description says nothing about side effects (in-flight deliveries, subscriptions) or auth requirements beyond what annotations give.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and the irreversibility qualifier, with zero filler. It is efficient, though so terse that it does little work beyond the tool name.
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 single-parameter delete with destructive/idempotent annotations and no output schema, the essentials are present: the action, its permanence, and a fully documented ID. Missing are cascade/irreversibility details and any confirmation or error behavior, which keeps it at minimum-viable completeness.
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 id parameter has 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no format, ID-source, or validity guidance beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 (delete) and resource (webhook) plus the permanence qualifier, so an agent can distinguish it from update_webhook, create_webhook, or regenerate_webhook_secret. It stops short of explicitly naming or routing against those siblings, so it lands at 4 rather than 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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., update_webhook if the agent only wants to modify), and no prerequisite such as needing a valid webhook ID or confirmation before a destructive call. The agent must infer everything from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.