Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

whatsmcp

by com.whatsmcp
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. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / properties / refusal / properties / account_status / description
      Previous value: -"when the number is not working: its status — starting, not_running, whatsapp_down, suspended, pairing, unlinked or locked"New value: +"when the number is not working: its status — starting, not_running, whatsapp_down (telegram_down for a Telegram account), suspended, pairing, unlinked or locked"
  2. 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"
+  ]
+}
  3. 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"
+}
  4. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is set. The description adds real value beyond that by explaining the mechanism: this is a server-side revoke, not a local wipe, and modern clients honour it – important for setting expectations about what happens on the recipient's device. It stops short of saying the action is irreversible or that it can be refused by clients/old versions.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the one nuance that matters. No filler, nothing buried.

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 simple, well-schema'd mutation with an output schema and destructive annotations, the description covers the essential what and how. The only gap is operational framing – reversibility, permission requirements, or failure modes – which an agent might want before issuing a destructive call.

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 documents all four parameters including the group/admin nuance on `sender` and the account fallback on `account_id`. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb+resource plus scope: 'Delete a WhatsApp message for everyone.' It doesn't explicitly name a sibling (e.g. wa_edit_message) as the alternative, but the intent is unmistakable and the 'for everyone' scope sets it apart.

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 implied rather than stated – an agent infers this is the tool for removing a message already sent. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no mention of the edit-vs-delete choice, and no note that deletion is usually for one's own message or requires admin rights (that only appears in the schema for `sender`).

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

All whatsmcp 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