delete_webhookDelete an incoming webhook (by id) from a room the account owns.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| webhook_id | Yes | Webhook id (from list_webhooks or create_webhook). | |
| invite_code | Yes | Room invite code. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | Purpose-built PingRoom result with credential and account fields removed. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as destructive and idempotent; the description adds the ownership requirement and clarifies the target ('incoming webhook, by id'). It does not contradict the annotations and provides context beyond them.
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?
One compact sentence with all essential information front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.
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 two-parameter delete operation with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers the object, ownership condition, and identifier. Nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.
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%, so parameters are already documented. The description reinforces webhook_id as the identifier and invite_code as the room, but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema.
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 action (delete), resource (incoming webhook), identifier mechanism (by id), and scope constraint (room the account owns). This distinguishes it from sibling create_webhook, update_webhook, and list_webhooks.
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 description makes the basic use case clear—deleting a webhook by id—and adds an ownership condition. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the usage guidance implied.
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.
Several tools overlap in purpose: broadcast, trigger_quick_action, create_handoff, ask_question, request_approval, and live_status can all deliver a ping or prompt to a human, and the wait_for_* family has five similar long-polling variants. The detailed descriptions help, but the update_quick_action/update_quick_actions pair and the activate_agent_inbox/handoff flow still create real selection ambiguity.
The set overwhelmingly follows verb_noun conventions like create_, get_, list_, update_, delete_, and wait_for_, making the naming predictable and searchable. A few outliers — broadcast, connection_info, and live_status — break the pattern, and the live_status/get_live_status pair is less obvious than it could be.
40 tools is a heavy surface for one MCP server, even with a broad feature set spanning rooms, webhooks, quick actions, questions, approvals, handoffs, attachments, and live status. The count feels inflated by many narrow wait/get variants that could be consolidated or exposed through fewer, more composable operations.
Core workflows around questions, approvals, handoffs, webhooks, quick actions, and attachments are mostly covered with create/read/list/wait operations. However, the room lifecycle is missing obvious delete or leave operations, and approvals lack list/cancel capabilities, leaving notable gaps for an agent managing those resources.