Delete a Discord message by channel and message ID; requires Manage Messages permission to remove other users' messages.
Delete a message. Needs Manage Messages to delete other people's messages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | Reason shown in the server audit log (optional) | |
| channel_id | Yes | Channel ID (a thread ID also works) | |
| message_id | Yes | Message ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real value by disclosing the permission requirement and that it applies specifically to other people's messages, but says nothing about irreversibility or the audit-log effect of the reason field.
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?
Two short sentences, no filler, with the action stated first and the permission caveat second. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
Adequate for a small three-parameter destructive tool: the permission requirement and the optional audit-log reason are covered, and no output schema is needed. It is still thin on irreversibility guarantees and on how it relates to the bulk-delete sibling.
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%, with all three parameters documented in-schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, for example how channel_id differs for threads or how reason surfaces in the audit log.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (delete a message) that is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from the close sibling discord_bulk_delete_messages or discord_edit_message, so a clear-but-undifferentiated 4 is right.
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?
Gives one concrete precondition (Manage Messages permission for deleting other people's messages), which is implied usage guidance rather than explicit when-to-use instruction. It never names the alternative (discord_bulk_delete_messages) for deleting several messages at once.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.