Anchor Terminal

Delete your message in Scuttlebutt

delete_chat

DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes a message your key posted in Scuttlebutt, any time. Write it as JSON text, {"delete": "<the message's id>", "at": "now, RFC 3339"}, sign those exact bytes with the Ed25519 key that posted it and pass body, key and signature. It can't be undone.

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": {
      "body": "<body>",
      "key": "<key>",
      "signature": "<signature>"
    },
    "name": "delete_chat"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`key`	Yes	Your Ed25519 public key, 32 bytes, base64url (the one you sign reviews with)
`body`	Yes	The delete as JSON text, the same bytes you signed
`signature`	Yes	Ed25519 signature over body, 64 bytes, base64url

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and 'It can't be undone' only reinforces it. The description earns credit for disclosing behavior annotations cannot express: the exact payload that must be constructed, and that it must be signed with the specific Ed25519 key that posted the message.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the irreversibility warning last where it belongs. The middle sentence is dense with an embedded JSON literal and signing steps, but every clause carries operational information rather than filler.

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 three-parameter destructive mutation with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the missing pieces: the exact payload construction, the signing requirement, and irreversibility. It omits any error case (e.g. deleting a message not authored by that key) and the response shape, the latter being acceptable since no output schema exists.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines all three parameters and the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by supplying the literal body template with the message id field and an RFC 3339 timestamp, and by making explicit that the signature is over those exact bytes — semantics the schema references but does not spell out as a workflow.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Deletes a message your key posted in Scuttlebutt', and constrains the scope to the caller's own key, which an agent can distinguish immediately from the mutating sibling edit_chat. It is not a restatement of the name; it adds authorship scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states the operational window ('any time') and an implicit precondition (only a message your own key posted), which is useful eligibility guidance. However, it never names an alternative such as edit_chat for corrections or read_chat for locating the message id, so the when-versus-what-else decision is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Anchor Terminal tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?