delete_webhookStops deliveries to a webhook endpoint and removes it, so event notifications no longer reach that URL. Already-disabled endpoints return success.
Stop deliveries to a webhook endpoint. Already-disabled endpoints succeed again. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| webhook_endpoint_id | Yes | Id from list_webhooks. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the annotations by explicitly stating the cost ('Free') and providing a detailed operational behavior (endpoints succeeding again after being disabled), which is more specific than the 'idempotentHint: true' annotation.
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?
The definition is extremely concise and efficient. Every phrase adds value—identifying the result, handling idempotency, and stating the cost—making it highly structured despite its brevity.
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 single-parameter mutation tool, the definition is highly complete. It covers the action, the mechanism of failure/idempotency, and operational constraints like cost.
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?
Given the schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds little semantic value to the input parameter itself. It serves more as a behavioral context setter, justifying the baseline score of 3.
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?
The description clearly states the primary action: 'Stop deliveries to a webhook endpoint.' While similar to general 'disable' commands, the focus on deliveries anchors its purpose well within the webhook context.
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?
The definition provides a crucial usage guideline by mentioning that 'Already-disabled endpoints succeed again.' This informs the agent how to handle idempotency without needing to check the full idempotency hint or tool output.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.