Remove messages from a chat to clear conversations or manage unwanted content. This helps tidy chat history.
Delete messages from a chat
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "delete"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 for a destructive operation. It does not disclose whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, whether it applies to a single message or a bulk range, or what happens to the chat afterward.
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?
A single short sentence with no waste and the action front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though brevity here edges toward under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and an empty input schema, the description is the only source of behavior for a destructive tool and it leaves irreversibility, scope, auth, and return behavior entirely unstated. It is not adequate for the complexity of the operation.
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 input schema declares zero parameters, so there is no parameter surface for the description to enrich (baseline would be 4). But the empty schema makes the tool's target ambiguous -- there is no chat identifier or message selector -- and the description does not compensate by explaining how messages are scoped, which is a real gap for a delete tool.
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 (Delete) and resource (messages from a chat), which separates it from siblings like del_photo, delete_contact, or folder_rm. However, it does not differentiate from the several other destructive siblings (wipe, cancel, kick, ban) or clarify scope beyond the resource noun.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. Given the large sibling list containing wipe, delete_contact, and del_photo, an agent gets no help choosing this tool over them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.