Skip to main content
Glama
debanjanbasu

grr

by debanjanbasu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

chat.spaces.messagePins.delete

Removes a message pin from a Google Chat space by resource name, returning the post-deletion state as JSON.

Instructions

Deletes a message pin. Requires user authentication with one of the following authorization scopes: - https://www.googleapis.com/auth/chat.spaces.pins - https://www.googleapis.com/auth/chat.spaces [HTTP DELETE] — removes the resource; irreversible unless the API documents a trash/undo flow; refused under --readonly safety profiles. Returns the post-delete resource state (or empty) as JSON — request bodies are built from the typed parameters (typed flags win over the params map), or read whole from body_file Siblings over the same resource: create, list.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes[URL path segment] Required. The resource name of the message pin to remove. Format: spaces/{space}/messagePins/{message_pin}
queryNoExtra KEY=VALUE query pairs for endpoints whose parameters Discovery does not describe.
paramsNoParameter map merged into the request; typed parameters win.
dry_runNoReturn the request that would be sent, without sending it.
body_fileNoRead the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Previous value: -"Required. The resource name of the message pin to remove. Format: spaces/{space}/messagePins/{message_pin}"New value: +"[URL path segment] Required. The resource name of the message pin to remove. Format: spaces/{space}/messagePins/{message_pin}"
    • addedInput schema / properties / name / pattern
      Added value: +"^spaces/[^/]+/messagePins/[^/]+$"
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses required user authentication with the exact scopes, that the operation is irreversible with no trash/undo flow, that it is refused under readonly safety profiles, and what is returned after deletion. The only gap is that the request-body/`body_file` boilerplate is irrelevant noise for a bodyless DELETE.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The deletion statement and irreversibility warning are correctly front-loaded, but the trailing sentence about typed parameters winning over `params` and reading from `body_file` is generic scaffolding that earns no place in a DELETE tool's description.

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?

Auth requirements, irreversibility, readonly refusal, and response shape are all covered, and an output schema exists so return values need no further explanation. A brief note on missing-pin behavior (error vs. no-op) would close the remaining gap.

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%, so the `name` format and regex are already documented. The description adds only a note on how typed parameters interact with the `params` map and `body_file`, which is negligible for a DELETE that takes no body, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Deletes a message pin" gives a specific verb and resource, and the closing "Siblings over the same resource: create, list" explicitly separates it from the two neighboring pin tools. An agent can pick this out of the large sibling list without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It names the sibling operations (create, list) but never states when to use delete versus, say, unpinning by other means, nor any precondition such as needing to know the pin's resource name or holding the pin permission. Usage is only implied from the verb and the irreversibility warning.

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