Skip to main content
Glama

pylon_redact_message

Remove specific messages from Pylon customer support issues to maintain clean records and protect sensitive information.

Instructions

Redact a message from an issue

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issue_idYesThe issue ID
message_idYesThe message ID to redact

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:482-495 (registration)
    Registers the pylon_redact_message MCP tool, including input schema (issue_id, message_id) and thin handler that calls PylonClient.redactMessage and returns JSON response.
    server.tool(
    	'pylon_redact_message',
    	'Redact a message from an issue',
    	{
    		issue_id: z.string().describe('The issue ID'),
    		message_id: z.string().describe('The message ID to redact'),
    	},
    	async ({ issue_id, message_id }) => {
    		const result = await client.redactMessage(issue_id, message_id);
    		return {
    			content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(result.data, null, 2) }],
    		};
    	},
    );
  • Core handler in PylonClient that performs the API request to redact the specified message in the issue.
    async redactMessage(
    	issueId: string,
    	messageId: string,
    ): Promise<SingleResponse<Message>> {
    	return this.request<SingleResponse<Message>>(
    		'POST',
    		`/issues/${issueId}/messages/${messageId}/redact`,
    	);
    }
  • TypeScript interface defining the structure of a Message, used in the response of redactMessage.
    export interface Message {
    	id: string;
    	message_html: string;
    	author: {
    		avatar_url?: string;
    		name: string;
    		contact?: { email: string; id: string };
    		user?: { email: string; id: string };
    	};
    	is_private: boolean;
    	source: string;
    	thread_id: string;
    	timestamp: string;
    	file_urls?: string[];
    	email_info?: {
    		from_email: string;
    		to_emails: string[];
    		cc_emails?: string[];
    		bcc_emails?: string[];
    	};
    }
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Redact' implies a destructive/mutative operation, but the description doesn't clarify whether redaction is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, affects issue history, or has side effects. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral questions unanswered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with two straightforward parameters and no complex behavioral nuances to explain. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'redact' means operationally (hiding vs deleting content), what the tool returns, error conditions, or permissions required. Given the complexity of message redaction and lack of structured metadata, more context is needed for safe agent invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (issue_id and message_id). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high, but adds no extra semantic context about parameter relationships or constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('redact') and target resource ('a message from an issue'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this as a redaction tool rather than a deletion or update operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like pylon_delete_issue or pylon_update_issue, which could involve message modifications.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing issue and message IDs), when redaction is appropriate versus deletion, or how this differs from sibling tools like pylon_delete_issue or pylon_update_issue. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/JustinBeckwith/pylon-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server