Recall or withdraw a specified QQ message by message ID. Use it to remove your own sent messages, or, as a group administrator, delete messages sent by group members.
撤回指定消息 (OneBot 11: delete_msg)。可撤回自己发出的消息，或作为群管理员撤回群成员消息。 :param message_id: 目标消息 ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message_id | Yes | 目标消息 ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries behavioral burden. It discloses the permission constraint (own message vs admin privilege), which is valuable context. However, it doesn't state what happens on failure (e.g., timeout, already retracted), whether retraction is reversible, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is adequate but incomplete.
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?
Front-loads the action and its OneBot equivalent, then permission rules, then param. No wasted sentences. The ':param' line is redundant with the schema but harmless.
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 single-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and permission model but omits error behavior, rate limits, and confirmation of deletion. It is minimally sufficient but leaves gaps an agent might need.
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%, so the parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description repeats ':param message_id: 目标消息 ID', adding no new information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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+resource ('撤回指定消息' / retract a specified message) and maps it to the OneBot 11 action delete_msg. Clear and distinct from siblings like get_msg or send_msg.
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?
Explicitly states usage context: can retract one's own messages, or as a group admin, retract group members' messages. This clarifies the permission model. Doesn't name alternatives (e.g., no comparison to other message tools) but none are needed given the unique purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.