Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Stables MCP Server

Stables MCP Server

Official
by stables-money
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Delete webhook

delete_webhook
DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes a webhook subscription by ID, stopping event delivery to its endpoint. Use it to remove unwanted or outdated webhook registrations.

Instructions

Delete a webhook subscription. You will stop receiving events at this endpoint.

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
webhookIdYesThe webhook subscription ID to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.6.11
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observedv1.4.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description earns credit for adding the concrete downstream consequence: events stop being delivered to the endpoint. It does not cover whether the subscription can be restored or any auth requirements, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two brief sentences, zero filler, with the primary action stated first and the consequence second. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter delete tool whose safety profile is fully covered by annotations and whose parameter is documented in the schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The only missing piece is pointing the agent to list_webhooks to obtain a valid webhookId.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single webhookId parameter is described in the schema, so the description is not required to document it. It adds no extra meaning such as where to obtain the ID or format constraints, matching the baseline 3.

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 specific verb ('Delete') plus resource ('webhook subscription'), so an agent immediately knows the operation. It doesn't explicitly name siblings like list_webhooks or create_webhook, so differentiation is left to the reader.

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?

The description states the outcome of deleting but gives no guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no reference to retrieving the ID via list_webhooks. Usage is only inferable from the name itself.

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