uplika

Delete a post

delete_post

Destructive

Delete a post from the channel for good. This is not reversible, so confirm with the person first. Daily delete limits differ per channel: Threads 100 a day, YouTube 20 a day. Works on posts written in the channel's own app as well, given the link.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	A publish id (post_…), the post's own id on the channel, or a post link (the URL you would open in a browser to see it). Links work for posts written in the channel's own app too, as long as the account is connected here.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the operation is not reversible, there are per-channel daily delete limits, and posts written in the channel's own app can also be deleted via link. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what the tool does, the confirmation warning, and the limits/special-case behavior. No filler or redundancy, and the core action is front-loaded.

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?

For a single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what gets deleted, irreversibility, limits, and accepted identifier/link behavior. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the id parameter including accepted forms and the link caveat. The tool description adds little beyond this: it mentions 'given the link' but the schema already covers that behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a post from the channel for good.' 'For good' clarifies permanence, which distinguishes this destructive operation from sibling tools like hide_reply or open_post. The purpose is immediately unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear operational context: deletion is irreversible, confirmation with the person should happen first, and daily delete limits vary by channel. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is strong enough to guide correct use.

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

All uplika tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, and descriptions actively steer usage (e.g., get_post vs open_post, list_posts vs list_channel_posts). A few pairs like list_accounts vs select_channels or get_post vs open_post still require careful reading to pick the right one, but the overlap is manageable.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant pattern is verb_noun (delete_post, get_insights, list_accounts, select_channels), which is consistent and predictable. A few bare-verb names like publish and reply, plus the media_* prefixed tools, break the strict pattern but still feel coherent within their subdomains.

Tool Count4/5

20 tools is on the heavier side, but the breadth is justified by the server's scope: publishing, media upload workflows, reply threads, insights, quotas, and account selection. Each tool has a real job, though the four post-retrieval variants and five media tools could feel redundant at a glance.

Completeness4/5

The core lifecycle is well covered: publish, reply, delete, retry, retrieve, list, and get insights, plus multi-step media handling. Minor gaps exist, such as no general post editing, no delete-reply action beyond hiding, and limited scheduling outside YouTube, but these are not critical for the stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?