Skip to main content
Glama

delete_webhook

Remove a registered webhook from the Lightning Wallet MCP server to stop receiving notifications or updates.

Instructions

Delete a registered webhook. REQUIRES AGENT KEY.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
webhook_idYesID of the webhook to delete

Implementation Reference

  • Actual implementation of the deleteWebhook tool in the LightningFaucetClient class.
    async deleteWebhook(webhookId: number): Promise<{
      message: string;
      rawResponse: ApiResponse;
    }> {
      const result = await this.request<ApiResponse & { message?: string }>('delete_webhook', {
        webhook_id: webhookId,
      });
      return {
        message: result.message || 'Webhook deleted',
        rawResponse: result,
      };
    }
  • The MCP tool handler in index.ts that dispatches 'delete_webhook' calls to the client.
    case 'delete_webhook': {
      const parsed = DeleteWebhookSchema.parse(args);
      const result = await session.requireClient().deleteWebhook(parsed.webhook_id);
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: 'text',
            text: JSON.stringify({
              success: true,
              message: result.message || 'Webhook deleted successfully',
            }, null, 2),
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • Input validation schema for 'delete_webhook'.
    const DeleteWebhookSchema = z.object({
      webhook_id: z.number().int().positive().describe('ID of the webhook to delete'),
    });
  • src/index.ts:509-518 (registration)
    Registration of the 'delete_webhook' tool in the MCP server.
      name: 'delete_webhook',
      description: 'Delete a registered webhook. REQUIRES AGENT KEY.',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          webhook_id: { type: 'integer', description: 'ID of the webhook to delete' },
        },
        required: ['webhook_id'],
      },
    },
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the authentication requirement ('REQUIRES AGENT KEY'), which is valuable context. However, it doesn't describe what 'delete' entails (permanent vs. reversible), potential side effects, or error conditions, leaving gaps for a destructive operation.

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?

The description is extremely concise—two short sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides critical authentication information, making it front-loaded and efficient.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers authentication but lacks details on behavior (e.g., permanence, confirmation), error handling, or return values. Given the complexity of a delete operation, more context would be helpful for safe usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add parameter details beyond the schema, but it implicitly reinforces that 'webhook_id' identifies the target for deletion, slightly enhancing clarity. With only one parameter, this minimal addition is sufficient for a score above baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Delete') and target resource ('a registered webhook'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_webhooks' and 'register_webhook'. It uses precise language that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly states 'REQUIRES AGENT KEY', providing clear context about authentication prerequisites. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to delete vs. deactivate) or mention sibling tools like 'list_webhooks' for reference.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/lightningfaucet/lightning-wallet-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server