Delete a specific message from a Telegram chat using its message ID and optional chat ID to remove unwanted content.
Delete a message from a chat.
:param message_id: Identifier of the message to delete. :param chat_id: Target chat identifier. :return: Status string indicating success.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chat_id | No | ||
| message_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a destructive operation but does not disclose permanence, permission requirements, or limitations. It also fails to mention that deletion may be irreversible or subject to Telegram's API restrictions. The return value is only vaguely stated as a status string.
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?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the action. It includes parameter documentation in a structured format (param/return), which is efficient. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the content is minimal.
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?
The description is not complete for an agent to use correctly. It lacks critical context for a deletion operation: whether the user can delete any message or only their own, whether deletion is permanent, any rate limits, and the exact meaning of the return status. The optional chat_id is not explained, and no constraints are mentioned. The output schema exists but the description does not elaborate on the status string beyond 'indicating success.'
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?
The schema has no descriptions for the parameters (coverage 0%), so the description must provide meaning. It does give brief descriptions: 'Identifier of the message to delete' and 'Target chat identifier.' This adds basic clarity but lacks detail such as the optionality of chat_id or default behavior, which is only inferable from the schema.
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?
The description clearly states the action: 'Delete a message from a chat.' The verb 'delete' and resource 'message from a chat' are specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like pin/unpin and send operations, which have different purposes.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions (e.g., can only delete own messages, or messages within a time limit). It simply states the action without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.