delete_webhookDelete a webhook endpoint and remove its delivery history, stopping event delivery and clearing stored logs.
Deletes the endpoint and cascades its delivery history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| spaceId | No | Krova Cloud Space id. Optional if KROVA_SPACE_ID is set as the server default. | |
| endpointId | Yes | The webhook endpoint id (see list_webhooks). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing that delivery history is also cascaded/deleted, which is useful behavioral context. It doesn't mention irreversibility or permissions, but the annotations cover the core destructive nature.
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 concise sentence with no filler. The key action 'Deletes' is front-loaded, and the cascade detail is included efficiently without redundancy.
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 simple destructive action with two well-documented parameters and annotations indicating destructiveness, the description is largely complete. It covers the main object and the cascade effect. It doesn't mention return value (no output schema) or prerequisites, but those are not critical here; a minor gap around reversibility/permissions keeps it from a 5.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both spaceId and endpointId properly documented in the input schema. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is 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?
The description 'Deletes the endpoint and cascades its delivery history' names a specific verb, resource, and an additional cascade behavior. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like delete_cube or delete_domain, leaving no ambiguity about what is being deleted.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives are mentioned. The description only states the action; an agent must infer from the name that this is the tool for removing a webhook endpoint, with no guidance on prerequisites or cases where it should be avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.