Skip to main content
Glama

WhatsMCP: MCP for WhatsApp

by com.whatsmcp.app
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Delete Message

wa_delete_message
Destructive

Delete a WhatsApp message for everyone. WhatsApp has no true delete for a peer that already has the message locally — this revokes it, which every modern client honours.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chatYesthe chat the message is in — a phone number or a group/channel JID
senderNogroup chats only, admin accounts: the phone number or JID of whoever sent the message being deleted; omit for your own message
account_idNothe account, as returned by wa_list_accounts; omit it when the workspace has only one account
message_idYesWhatsApp's id for the message, as returned by wa_send_message or seen in wa_list_messages

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusYesok (the operation succeeded) or refused (nothing was done)
refusalNopresent only when status is refused
new_message_idNoWhatsApp's id for the react/edit/revoke protocol message itself

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / account_id / description
      Previous value: -"the account, as returned by wa_list_accounts"New value: +"the account, as returned by wa_list_accounts; omit it when the workspace has only one account"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "account_id",
-  "chat",
-  "message_id"
-]New value: +[
+  "chat",
+  "message_id"
+]
    • addedOutput schema / properties / refusal / properties / candidates
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "on an account_ambiguous refusal: the accounts to choose from — retry with one of these as account_id",
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "properties": {
+      "account_id": {
+        "description": "the id to retry with as account_id",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "name": {
+        "description": "the account's WhatsApp display name",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "phone": {
+        "description": "the account's phone number, E.164",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "status": {
+        "description": "whether the number works right now — live, connecting, or why not, as wa_list_accounts reports it",
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "account_id"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": [
+    "null",
+    "array"
+  ]
+}
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / refusal / properties / account_status
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "when the number is not working: its status — starting, not_running, whatsapp_down, suspended, pairing, unlinked or locked",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / refusal / properties / account_status_reason
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "the detail of account_status, e.g. no_egress, stopped, no_plan",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / refusal / properties / since
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "when the number stopped working, RFC3339, when known",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real value by explaining that this is a revoke rather than a true delete and that modern clients honour it. It stops short of stating irreversibility or any time-limit/failure conditions on revocation.

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?

Two tight sentences, the action front-loaded and the semantic caveat immediately after. Every clause earns its place — nothing redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists and all four parameters are fully documented, so the description's only remaining burden is the action's semantics — which it covers by explaining revocation. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 already explains chat, sender, account_id and message_id in detail; the description adds no parameter-level guidance. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a WhatsApp message') plus the scope 'for everyone', which separates it from wa_edit_message and the unrelated delete siblings (wa_delete_group, wa_delete_template, wa_delete_webhook). The revocation clarification further pins down what kind of delete this is.

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?

Usage is only implied: the revocation note tells the agent this removes a message for all recipients, but it never states when to prefer this over wa_edit_message, nor any precondition (e.g. only your own messages unless admin, per the sender param). No explicit when/when-not routing.

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

All WhatsMCP: MCP for WhatsApp toolsInspect
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