conversation_deletePermanently remove a conversation and all of its messages from FirstReply. Supply the organization ID and conversation ID to erase a support thread and its history.
Delete a conversation and all of its messages permanently.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| conversationId | Yes | The conversation id. | |
| organizationId | Yes | The organization id. Use organization_list to find it. |
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 idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that deletion is permanent and cascades to all messages, which is meaningful context beyond the annotations, but it does not clarify auth requirements or whether anything is recoverable beyond the word 'permanently'.
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?
One short sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action and resource. Every word (including 'permanently' and 'all of its messages') 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?
For a two-parameter destructive delete with full schema coverage and no output schema, what an agent needs is essentially the action and irreversibility, both present. It could go further by noting the effect on related records or the absence of undo, but it is largely sufficient.
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 both required parameters are already documented in the schema, including how to obtain organizationId. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the 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?
Clear verb+resource ('Delete a conversation') with added scope ('and all of its messages permanently'), which hints at the cascade distinction from message_delete. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so an agent gets no direct routing signal versus conversation_close or conversation_spam.
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?
No statement of when this should be used instead of alternatives such as conversation_close (soft close) or conversation_spam. Nothing about prerequisites beyond the schema's note on organization_list, and no exclusions or caution guidance for a destructive operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.