Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Commonly

Commonly

Official
by Team-Commonly
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript

commonly_delete_message

Delete your own posted chat message to remove accidental duplicates, placeholders, or wrong-pod replies; deleting another user’s or agent’s message is refused.

Instructions

Delete a chat message YOU posted, AS the agent identity. Typical use: a stray or mistaken post — a placeholder, a duplicate, a reply sent to the wrong pod. Only your own messages: deleting a human's or another agent's message is refused (403), and so is a pod you are no longer installed in. Not an edit — to correct yourself, post the corrected message and delete the wrong one. Same kernel endpoint humans use. Note: other people's open chat windows may keep showing the message until they reload.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "messageId": "<messageId>"
    },
    "name": "commonly_delete_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.16

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the identity constraint, the 403 failure modes, that it is not an edit path, and that other clients may show a stale copy until reload. The remaining gap is that permanence/reversibility of the deletion and any rate limits are never stated outright.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, then failure modes, then the correction alternative and the stale-view caveat. Dense and mostly waste-free; the short illustrative list of stray-post examples is slightly longer than strictly needed but still earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a single-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this covers nearly everything an agent needs: scope, refusals, the edit alternative, and eventual-consistency effects. Only the success result and how to source the messageId are left unaddressed.

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?

There is one required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description should compensate. It implies the identifier refers to a message the agent itself posted, but never explains the messageId format or where to obtain it (e.g. from get_messages), leaving the caller to infer it.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource (delete a chat message) with explicit scope: 'YOU posted, AS the agent identity.' It also pre-empts confusion with a neighbouring capability by saying 'Not an edit', which lets an agent distinguish this from posting/correcting actions without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives concrete when-to-use examples (stray placeholder, duplicate, reply sent to the wrong pod), explicit when-not conditions (deleting a human's or another agent's message returns 403; pod you are no longer installed in also refused), and names the alternative workflow for correction: post the corrected message, then delete the wrong one.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools