Skip to main content
Glama

Delete WhatsApp Business Template

wa_delete_template
Destructive

Delete a WhatsApp Business message template from one of your Business (Cloud API) numbers — one language, or every language of the name when language is omitted. Meta blocks reusing a deleted template's name for a while.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesthe template name
languageNodelete only this language, e.g. pt_BR; omit to delete every language of the name
account_idYesthe Business (Cloud API) account that owns the template

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
deletedNotrue when Meta deleted it
refusalNopresent only when the call was declined

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. Changed1 schema field changed
    • 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. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the cascade behavior when `language` is omitted and the external side effect that Meta blocks name reuse for a period — both non-obvious consequences of deletion.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action and scope, then appending the cascade rule and the Meta name-block caveat. Nothing is redundant.

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 and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description only needs to convey scope and consequences — which it does. It could go slightly further on irreversibility or confirmation expectations for a destructive bulk (all-language) deletion, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 three parameters are already documented, including the omit-to-delete-all semantics for `language`. The description restates that semantics but adds no new syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (WhatsApp Business message template) scoped to a Business (Cloud API) number, and immediately disambiguates cascade behavior (one language vs. all languages of the name). This clearly separates it from siblings like wa_create_template and wa_list_templates.

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?

Gives clear context for the key decision — omit `language` to delete every language of the name — and warns that Meta blocks reuse of the deleted name for a while, which helps an agent decide whether to call it now. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., prefer this only when the template is truly unwanted vs. wa_create_template for a new one), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources