Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
eventbrite-mcp

eventbrite-mcp

by prmichaelsen
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

delete_webhook

Delete a webhook by ID to stop Eventbrite from sending event updates to an obsolete endpoint. Requires a personal OAuth token.

Instructions

Delete a Webhook by ID.

ENDPOINT: DELETE /webhooks/{id}/

AUTHENTICATION: Requires: Authorization: Bearer PERSONAL_OAUTH_TOKEN

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
webhook_idYesWebhook ID (required)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.6

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the authentication requirement, which is useful, but says nothing about whether deletion is permanent/destructive, whether it requires ownership, or what error occurs if the ID is invalid. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the action, then endpoint and auth in clearly labeled sections. It is brief and free of filler, though the ALL-CAPS section headers are slightly heavy for a one-line tool.

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 simple single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the definition covers what the call does and how to authenticate, but omits critical context about irreversibility and permission requirements. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and only one parameter exists, so the schema already documents webhook_id. The endpoint path syntax reinforces that a single ID identifies the resource, adding minor value. A baseline 4 is appropriate given complete schema coverage and a single required param.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('Delete a Webhook by ID') and it specifies the endpoint. It distinguishes itself from create_webhook, list_webhooks, and update_webhook-style siblings by naming the delete action, though it doesn't explicitly point to alternatives or prerequisites.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use guidance, no conditions or warnings (e.g., irreversibility), and no reference to related tools like create_webhook or list_webhooks. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and endpoint.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools