delete_webhookPermanently delete a webhook from your Up Banking account. Use this to remove a webhook that is no longer needed; the action cannot be undone.
Permanently delete a webhook. This cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| webhook_id | Yes | The webhook to delete. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key trait: permanence and irreversibility ('cannot be undone'). However, it omits what happens to associated resources (e.g., webhook logs), auth requirements, and whether confirmation is needed, so it is only partially complete.
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?
Two short sentences with the destructive nature front-loaded and zero wasted words. Every clause earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a one-parameter destructive tool the description is largely sufficient, with the main gap being the absence of auth/permission or downstream-effect context.
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, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides for webhook_id.
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) with the added modifier 'permanently'. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_webhook or create_webhook, but the verb-resource pairing is unambiguous.
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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as get_webhook, or any preconditions (e.g., confirming the webhook is no longer needed). The description is purely a statement of effect, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.