kualat-mcp

Delete a webhook

delete_webhook

Destructive

Removes a webhook subscription and its delivery log by subscription ID; this action cannot be undone.

Instructions

Remove a webhook subscription and its delivery log. This cannot be undone.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Subscription id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds two facts the annotations do not: the delivery log is deleted along with the subscription, and the action is irreversible. It stops short of stating behavior on a nonexistent id or required permission scope.

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 waste. The cascading deletion and irreversibility — the highest-risk facts — are front-loaded where an agent will read them before acting.

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

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, this is nearly complete: scope, cascade, and irreversibility are all stated. Only error behavior for an unknown id is left unspecified, a minor gap.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% ("Subscription id."), so the schema fully carries the meaning. The description adds nothing about the id format, range, or where to obtain it, which is the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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?

Uses a specific verb ("Remove") plus the exact resource ("a webhook subscription") and even names the collateral resource ("its delivery log"). The webhook resource clearly separates it from delete_link, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the resource name — an agent can infer this is the tool to remove a webhook subscription rather than a link. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, and no guidance such as discovering the id via list_webhooks first.

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

Deploy Server