grr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

chat.spaces.messages.delete

Permanently deletes a Google Chat message by resource name, with an option to also remove its threaded replies. Use it to clean up or retract sent messages.

Instructions

Deletes a message. For an example, see Delete a message. Supports the following types of authentication: - App authentication with the authorization scope: - https://www.googleapis.com/auth/chat.bot - User authentication with one of the following authorization scopes: - https://www.googleapis.com/aut [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 paramsmap), or read whole frombody_file` Siblings over the same resource: create, get, list, patch, replaceCards, search, update.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	[URL path segment] Required. Resource name of the message. Format: `spaces/{space}/messages/{message}` If you've set a custom ID for your message, you can use the value from the `
`force`	No	[query parameter] Optional. When `true`, deleting a message also deletes its threaded replies. When `false`, if a message has threaded replies, deletion fails. Only applies when
`query`	No	Extra KEY=VALUE query pairs for endpoints whose parameters Discovery does not describe.
`params`	No	Parameter map merged into the request; typed parameters win.
`dry_run`	No	Return the request that would be sent, without sending it.
`body_file`	No	Read the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 26, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / force / description

Previous value: -"Optional. When `true`, deleting a message also deletes its threaded replies. When `false`, if a message has threaded replies, deletion fails. Only applies when "New value: +"[query parameter] Optional. When `true`, deleting a message also deletes its threaded replies. When `false`, if a message has threaded replies, deletion fails. Only applies when "

changedInput schema / properties / name / description

Previous value: -"Required. Resource name of the message. Format: `spaces/{space}/messages/{message}` If you've set a custom ID for your message, you can use the value from the `"New value: +"[URL path segment] Required. Resource name of the message. Format: `spaces/{space}/messages/{message}` If you've set a custom ID for your message, you can use the value from the `"

addedInput schema / properties / name / pattern

Added value: +"^spaces/[^/]+/messages/[^/]+$"

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

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 much of it: it declares the operation irreversible absent a documented trash/undo flow, notes it is refused under --readonly profiles, and states the post-delete return shape. Missing only finer operational details like permission errors or rate limits.

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 key fact ('Deletes a message') is front-loaded, but the middle is bloated with pasted auth-scope boilerplate that is even truncated mid-URL, plus a generic sibling list. Useful safety note is buried after the noise.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be spelled out, and auth requirements, irreversibility, and destructive semantics are covered. For a destructive delete with 100% schema coverage, only explicit when-to-use guidance is notably absent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds only the request-construction note (typed params win over params map, body_file alternative) and does not elaborate on name, force, or dry_run beyond what the schema already documents.

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 opening 'Deletes a message' gives a specific verb and resource, and the closing sibling list (create, get, list, patch, replaceCards, search, update) differentiates it from the other operations on the same resource. The differentiation is a bare enumeration rather than condition-based, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

It names siblings but never states when to choose delete over them (e.g., delete vs update, or delete vs a soft/trash flow). The only conditional context, force-driven threaded-reply behavior, lives in the schema rather than the description.

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

Deploy Server