iHatePosting

Delete a post from iHatePosting

delete_post

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a post from iHatePosting. ONE SEND AT A TIME: a SCHEDULED post going to several accounts is stored as one post PER SEND, so deleting one cancels only that platform and leaves the rest scheduled — pass the postId that create_post returned on that particular send, or the id of the row list_posts shows for it. There is no need to cancel a whole multi-platform post to drop one platform from it. A DRAFT IS DIFFERENT: until it is scheduled, a draft is ONE post holding every platform it is aimed at (all its sends share one postId), so deleting it removes every platform — to drop one platform from a draft, use update_post with the remaining accountIds instead. The reply's platformsRemoved names every platform the delete took; for one send of a group, stillScheduled lists the sends still going out and otherSends the rest of the group (already published or failed), each with its status; their scheduledAt is UTC (it ends in Z) and scheduledLocal is the same moment in the account owner's timezone — report that one. THIS DOES NOT UNPUBLISH ANYTHING: a post that has already gone out stays live on the network, and deleting it here only removes iHatePosting's record of it. For that reason a published post is refused unless you pass force: true, and you should only do that after telling the user in words that the platform post will remain. A post that is publishing at this moment is never deletable, forced or not — the worker is mid-flight on it. Deleting a scheduled post stops it going out.

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": {
      "postId": "<postId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_post"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`force`	No	Required to delete a post that already published. The platform post stays live — say so before using this.
`postId`	Yes	Post id from list_posts

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 2, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

AddedSep 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description adds substantial context beyond them: it does NOT unpublish network content, it refuses already-published posts unless forced, and it can never delete a mid-flight publishing post. This is exactly the kind of consequence disclosure the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the highest-risk distinction ('ONE SEND AT A TIME') before the nuances. It is long and relies on heavy capitalization, but nearly every sentence carries distinct, decision-relevant information for a genuinely complex tool, so the length is largely earned.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description compensates by documenting the reply fields (platformsRemoved, stillScheduled, otherSends, scheduledAt/scheduledLocal in UTC vs local). Combined with the mutation rules, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining which postId value to supply in the ambiguous multi-send case (the id create_post returned on that send or the list_posts row) and reinforces the force semantics from the schema. It adds real selection meaning beyond the parameter definitions.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Delete a post from iHatePosting') and immediately differentiates the noun by the cases that matter (scheduled send vs draft). An agent can tell this apart from siblings like update_post and list_posts without opening their schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit when/when-not guidance: which postId to pass for a per-send scheduled post, that dropping one platform from a draft requires update_post with remaining accountIds instead, and that published posts require force:true only after warning the user. Alternatives and exclusions are named rather than implied.

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

All iHatePosting tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?