whatsmcp

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

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`chat`	Yes	the chat the message is in — a phone number or a group/channel JID
`sender`	No	group chats only, admin accounts: the phone number or JID of whoever sent the message being deleted; omit for your own message
`account_id`	Yes	the account, as returned by wa_list_accounts
`message_id`	Yes	WhatsApp's id for the message, as returned by wa_send_message or seen in wa_list_messages

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`status`	Yes	ok (the operation succeeded) or refused (nothing was done)
`refusal`	No	present only when status is refused
`new_message_id`	No	WhatsApp's id for the react/edit/revoke protocol message itself

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 14, 2026

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"
+}

First observedSep 27, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: it explains that this is a revocation rather than a true delete, that local copies on a peer are not removed, and that modern clients honor it. This meaningfully informs the agent about the actual effect and its limits.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope; the second sentence is not padding because it carries the non-obvious revocation semantics. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the scope and effect semantics an agent needs; it is essentially complete for a delete tool, with only minor room to name alternatives explicitly.

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 all four parameters (including the conditional 'sender' for admin group deletes) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Delete a WhatsApp message') and adds the critical scope qualifier 'for everyone', which distinguishes it from any for-me-only deletion and from siblings like wa_edit_message. An agent can identify the operation and its blast radius without opening the schema.

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?

The 'for everyone' scope implies context for use, but the description never states when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as wa_edit_message, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied, not spelled out.

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

All whatsmcp 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?