chat_delete
Delete a Slack message by providing its channel and timestamp.
Instructions
Delete a message.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| channel | Yes | ||
| ts | Yes | ||
| as_user | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Delete a Slack message by providing its channel and timestamp.
Delete a message.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| channel | Yes | ||
| ts | Yes | ||
| as_user | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'Delete a message.' It does not reveal that this is a destructive action, whether permissions are required, or any side effects like irreversible deletion. The agent lacks critical safety information.
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 extremely concise at three words, but this comes at the expense of completeness. While it avoids verbosity, it is too brief to be helpful and does not earn its place given the lack of supplementary information.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not leverage it to provide context about return values or behavior. Given the complexity of sibling delete tools, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role and constraints.
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 0% description coverage for its three parameters, and the description adds no extra meaning. It fails to explain what 'channel', 'ts', or 'as_user' represent, leaving the agent with no semantic guidance beyond property names and types.
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 verb 'Delete' and the resource 'message', making the action obvious. However, it does not differentiate from related sibling tools like chat_delete_scheduled_message, which also deletes messages of a different type.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as chat_update or chat_delete_scheduled_message. It lacks any context about prerequisites or scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/karbassi/slack-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server