Cancelar Webhook
cancelar_webhookDestructive
Desativa um webhook registrado pelo ID.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| webhookId | Yes | ID do webhook a desativar |
Contazz AutoPilot
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- Added
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation destructiveHint=true already signals the destructive nature. The description adds that it disables a webhook already registered, implying an existing resource, but does not detail reversibility or other side effects.
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?
A single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no filler and efficiently communicates the core function.
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 one-parameter destructive tool, the description is minimal but adequate. However, it does not mention expected return values or failure modes, which would be useful given no output schema exists. The simplicity of the operation reduces the need for extensive documentation, but there is still a gap.
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 coverage is 100% with the parameter description 'ID do webhook a desativar'. The tool description restates 'pelo ID', providing no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already documents.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Desativa' (deactivates) with the resource 'webhook' and specifies 'pelo ID', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like subscribe_webhook (creation) and listar_webhooks (listing).
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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are prerequisites (e.g., the webhook must exist) or conditions for non-use mentioned. The only implicit context is the tool name itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
Many tools have distinct purposes, but several overlap: 'calcular_cbs_ibs' and 'consultar_aliquota_cbs_ibs' both deal with CBS/IBS rates, 'criar_cobranca' and 'criar_cobranca_pix' create similar things, and multiple metrics tools (dashboard_executivo, saude_financeira, autopilot_regua) could confuse an agent. The reconciliation_* group is well-differentiated, but overall the large, overlapping surface creates ambiguity.
Naming Consistency2/5
Names mix Portuguese and English inconsistently (e.g., 'agendar_cobranca' vs. 'subscribe_webhook'). Most Portuguese names follow verb_noun, but many English names are noun_verb (e.g., 'reconciliation_execute') rather than verb_noun. Additionally, some names are vague or non-descriptive ('autopilot_regua', 'badges_contadores', 'metricas_escritorio'), breaking any predictable pattern.
Tool Count2/5
61 tools is excessive for most MCP servers, even for a broad financial/fiscal automation domain. The count feels bloated, and several tools (e.g., criar_orcamento, listar_orcamentos) are dead weight being deactivated. This would likely be better split into multiple focused servers (e.g., cobranças, reconciliation, fiscal).
Completeness3/5
The tool surface covers many workflows: cobranças, NFS-e, reconciliation, tax simulation, dashboards, webhooks, and client insights. However, there are notable gaps in basic CRUD: no update/delete for cobranças or clientes, and no way to manage orcamentos (they're deactivated). The reconciliation module is very complete, but the overall surface has dead ends and missing lifecycle operations.