delete_webhookDelete a webhook endpoint by ID to stop deliveries immediately. Deleting a missing endpoint returns an ignorable error, so repeated calls are safe.
Delete a webhook endpoint by id. Deliveries stop immediately. Idempotent in effect: deleting a non-existent endpoint returns an error you can safely ignore.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The webhook endpoint id to delete. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.39.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds that deliveries stop immediately and clarifies idempotent behavior—a non-existent id returns an error that is safe to ignore. These are useful nuances beyond the annotations, though auth requirements and permanence details remain unstated.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by impact and idempotency clarification. No redundant or filler text.
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 one-parameter delete with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential effects. However, it lacks details about whether deletion is reversible or what happens to webhook secrets/events, leaving minor gaps for a destructive operation.
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 coverage is 100%, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description only restates 'by id' without adding format, range, or source-of-id guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 endpoint') and identifies the key parameter ('by id'). The action is unmistakably distinct from sibling reads (get_webhook, list_webhooks) and other mutations (update_webhook, create_webhook).
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 guidance or alternatives are given. The description does not say when deletion is preferable to disabling via update_webhook, nor does it mention prerequisites such as ownership or authentication.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.