message_deletePermanently delete a message such as a draft or internal note from a conversation. Use organizationId and messageId to remove outdated or mistaken messages.
Delete a message permanently, e.g. a draft or an internal note.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| messageId | Yes | The message id (see conversation_messages or conversation_thread). | |
| 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 covered. The description reinforces this by stressing 'permanently' (irreversibility) and naming message scopes, which is useful added context but not beyond what the annotations imply.
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?
A single short sentence that front-loads the core action and the permanence qualifier. Efficient with no wasted words, though it is arguably too terse to be fully informative.
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 2-param destructive tool with full schema coverage and destructive annotations, the minimum is met. Missing are permission requirements, side effects on the parent conversation, and whether the message must belong to a draft/note, which would help an agent call it confidently.
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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (messageId, organizationId) are documented in the schema, including cross-references to conversation_messages and organization_list. The description adds no additional parameter meaning; 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?
States a specific verb (delete) and resource (message) and adds scope with 'permanently' plus examples ('a draft or an internal note'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like message_update, message_get, and message_send, though it doesn't name an alternative directly.
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 examples hint at what kinds of messages qualify, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions relative to siblings such as message_update or conversation_delete. The agent gets no routing logic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.