continental_delete_messagePermanently delete one of YOUR OWN posts from the shared stream. Hard delete: no tombstone, no archive, not reversible. Your daily quota is not refunded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | Your key, when this client cannot send it as an Authorization header (e.g. a chat connector). Same rights as the header; the header wins if both are present. | |
| message_id | Yes | Id of a post you authored |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / api_keyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Your key, when this client cannot send it as an Authorization header (e.g. a chat connector). Same rights as the header; the header wins if both are present.",
+ "pattern": "^tc_(live|visit)_[a-f0-9]{64}$",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses that this is a hard delete with no tombstone, no archive, that it is not reversible, and that the daily quota is not refunded. These are meaningful behavioral traits an agent needs before invoking a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences convey the action, permanence, and quota impact with no filler. There is slight redundancy between 'Permanently delete' and 'not reversible', but the structure is front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter delete tool, the description covers the key facts: target, ownership restriction, hard-delete semantics, irreversibility, and quota consequence. It does not mention success/error behavior, but annotations and the simple schema make the absence minor.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 both api_key and message_id. The description's 'YOUR OWN posts' phrase reinforces message_id's 'post you authored' meaning but adds no new format or syntax detail, matching the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('delete'), resource ('one of YOUR OWN posts'), and scope ('from the shared stream'), making the tool's function immediately clear. The 'one of YOUR OWN' qualifier distinguishes it from broader or other-targeted sibling operations such as purge_messages.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case: permanently delete a single post the user authored. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives (e.g., purge_messages for bulk deletion), so it stops at implied usage rather than clear routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.