Well

Delete chat conversation

well_delete_chat_conversation

Destructive

Soft-delete one conversation owned by the current member after confirmation. Use thread_id from chat_conversations records. Other members' owned conversations and foreign workspace records are refused; legacy ownerless conversations keep the service's existing workspace rules.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`thread_id`	Yes
`workspace_id`	No	Target workspace. Omit when the token authorizes one workspace. Required when it authorizes several — a write lands in exactly one workspace and this call would not say which.
`conversation_id`	No	The conversation id returned by the previous Well result, in its meta under well/conversation_id, in its structuredContent, or in its JSON text block. Pass it back on every call in the same conversation, including a call a card makes, so the chosen workspace and the earlier answers still apply. It decides the conversation on its own: nothing the host states about the session replaces it. Omit it only on the first call of a conversation.
`idempotency_key`	No	Optional client-supplied key. A retried write with the same key returns the original result instead of re-applying the operation.
`workspace_scope`	No	Restrict this call to the family: the token's primary workspace plus the company workspaces under it that you are a member of. Unrelated authorized workspaces drop out of the read; row reads merge across the family, while a per-workspace figure still reports exactly one workspace.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	No
`error`	No
`success`	Yes
`reply_lines`	No
`conversation_id`	No	The conversation this result belongs to. Pass it back as the conversation_id argument on every later Well call in the same conversation.
`near_candidates`	No
`newly_connected`	No	Tools that connected to this workspace since the last result and that no session was told about yet, oldest first. Present only when at least one tool is new. The connected-line rule says when to tell an entry; when it does, one line per entry, in the person's language: "<name> is connected.". Never fold several entries into one sentence. Each entry comes back once, on one result only: never repeat its line later.
`conversation_id_note`	No	Present only when the server opened a fresh lane, stating that no choice recorded earlier was read.
`conversation_id_source`	No	Where the conversation id came from: the host's own request meta, the caller's argument, or a fresh lane the server opened.
`near_candidates_truncated`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 28, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / code
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

addedOutput schema / properties / near_candidates

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "properties": {
+      "company_id": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "name": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "company_id",
+      "name"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / near_candidates_truncated
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```

addedOutput schema / properties / reply_lines

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

AddedOct 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation: it discloses that the delete is soft, that ownership is enforced per-member, that foreign-workspace records are refused, and that legacy ownerless conversations fall back to workspace rules. These are exactly the consequences an agent needs before calling a destructive tool.

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 sentences, no filler: the action and its soft-delete nature come first, the identifier source second, the refusal rules last. Every clause carries operational information.

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?

With an output schema present, return shape needn't be described, and ownership/confirmation/refusal semantics are covered. It does not say what happens if the conversation is already deleted or whether a soft delete is recoverable, a minor remaining gap for a destructive tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 80% (workspace_id, conversation_id, idempotency_key and workspace_scope are all documented), so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by pinning thread_id to chat_conversations records, disambiguating it from the tooling-level conversation_id parameter that is easy to confuse with the target thread.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('soft-delete one conversation') plus the ownership scope (current member), and 'soft' distinguishes it from a hard delete. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling well_update_chat_conversation, but the operation is 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?

Gives a concrete precondition ('after confirmation') and tells the agent where thread_id comes from ('chat_conversations records'). Refusal rules for other members' conversations and foreign workspace records clarify when the call will succeed, though it never names an alternative tool.

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

All Well 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?