Delete a message from a thread. Supports Telegram, WhatsApp, and other connected channels. Note: Some channels have time limits on message deletion.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| thread_id | Yes | Thread/channel ID containing the message | |
| message_id | Yes | ID of the message to delete | |
| in_workspace | No | Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / in_workspaceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected.",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: cross-channel scope (Telegram, WhatsApp, other channels) and channel-specific time limits, which an agent cannot get from the annotations.
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 tight sentences: action, channel scope, then caveat, with the core purpose front-loaded. No filler or restatement of the name.
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 destructive, no-output-schema tool whose annotations already cover reversibility and safety, the description supplies channel scope and the time-limit constraint. Minor gaps remain (whether deletion is permanent per channel, permission needs), but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.
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 thread_id, message_id, and in_workspace are already documented. The description adds no parameter-level detail (no format hints for IDs, no explanation of the workspace override), so the schema carries the full load and baseline 3 applies.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Delete a message from a thread'), which clearly separates it from messages_edit, messages_forward, and threads_delete. It stops short of explicitly naming any sibling or scoping constraint, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.
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?
It notes a real usage caveat ('Some channels have time limits on message deletion'), which implies when deletion will fail, but it never states when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., threads_delete, messages_edit) or any permission prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than guided.
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.