gitlab-mcp

Delete Webhook

gitlab_delete_webhook

Destructive

Permanently delete a GitLab project or group webhook by hook_id to stop event delivery. Verify the webhook with gitlab_list_webhooks first; deletion is irreversible.

Instructions

Delete a project or group webhook permanently; GitLab stops sending its events. Irreversible. Requires hook_id. Recommended pre-check: gitlab_list_webhooks.

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": {
      "hook_id": "<hook_id>"
    },
    "name": "gitlab_delete_webhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hook_id`	Yes
`group_id`	No
`project_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.7.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by spelling out the effect ('stops sending its events') and the irreversibility, though it says nothing about required permissions, token scopes, or what happens on a repeated delete.

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?

Four short clauses, front-loaded with the action and consequence, then the required parameter, then the pre-check hint. No filler sentences.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers effect and irreversibility but leaves the scope-selection parameters entirely to a schema that documents none of them. Adequate overall, but an agent could still mis-scope the delete by omitting or misusing project_id/group_id.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across three parameters, so the description must carry the load. It only confirms that hook_id is required and never explains the project_id/group_id scoping pair or whether exactly one must be supplied, leaving the most error-prone part of the call undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a project or group webhook'), plus the observable consequence ('GitLab stops sending its events'). The scope (project or group) and the permanent nature make it unambiguous against siblings like gitlab_update_webhook.

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?

Provides a concrete pre-call recommendation ('Recommended pre-check: gitlab_list_webhooks'), which is real routing guidance. It lacks an explicit when-not condition or a pointer to the update alternative for non-destructive changes, so it falls short of the top score.

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

Deploy Server