delete_webhookDelete a webhook registration by ID. Use list_webhooks to find webhook IDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| webhookId | Yes | Webhook registration ID to delete | |
| walletAddress | Yes | Wallet that owns the webhook (required — prevents deleting another wallet's webhooks) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / walletAddressAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Wallet that owns the webhook (required — prevents deleting another wallet's webhooks)",
+ "maxLength": 50,
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "webhookId"
-]New value: +[
+ "webhookId",
+ "walletAddress"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states the tool deletes a webhook, which is a destructive action. However, annotations set destructiveHint to false, creating a direct contradiction. No other behavioral traits (e.g., irreversibility, permission requirements) are disclosed. This warrants a score of 1 due to the contradiction.
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, both purposeful. The first states the core action and object, the second provides necessary guidance for finding the ID. No filler or redundant information.
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 simple delete tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient: it says what it deletes and how to find IDs. However, the contradiction between the destructive description and destructiveHint=false creates confusion, and there is no mention of error conditions or return value. This leaves the context incomplete.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value by saying 'by ID' and referencing list_webhooks, but it does not explain the walletAddress ownership requirement beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 uses a specific verb 'delete' and clearly states the resource ('webhook registration') and the identifier ('by ID'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_webhooks and register_webhook by describing a distinct action.
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?
It explicitly instructs to use list_webhooks to find webhook IDs, providing clear context and a recommended prerequisite. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool (e.g., cannot delete webhooks owned by other wallets), though the schema partially covers that.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between the 'stake' and 'create_stake_transaction' tools, as well as between 'unstake' and 'create_unstake_transaction', and 'withdraw' and 'withdraw_stake', which could cause confusion. However, descriptions clearly differentiate between automated and advanced manual use cases, mitigating ambiguity.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, with clear and descriptive naming (e.g., check_balance, get_staking_summary, register_webhook). There are no deviations in style or convention, making the set highly predictable and readable.
With 26 tools, the count is borderline high for the staking domain, potentially overwhelming for agents. While many tools provide specialized functionality, some could be consolidated (e.g., multiple transaction-building tools), making the set feel slightly heavy but still within a reasonable scope.
The toolset comprehensively covers the staking lifecycle, including address checking, balance queries, staking, unstaking, withdrawing, monitoring, simulation, and verification. There are no obvious gaps, and tools provide clear guidance and alternatives, ensuring agents can handle all necessary operations without dead ends.