gapify-mcp-server

Messages: Delete a message

gapify_delete_message

DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently delete a message and its attachments from a conversation using account, conversation, and message IDs.

Instructions

Delete a message and its attachments from a conversation [Messages] DELETE /api/v1/accounts/{account_id}/conversations/{conversation_id}/messages/{message_id} Auth: User API key (header api-access-token). Destructive: this permanently deletes the resource. Text values may be written in Persian (Farsi) or any other language and are sent unchanged; IDs, numbers and phone numbers may use Persian or Arabic-Indic digits.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "account_id": "<account_id>",
      "conversation_id": "<conversation_id>",
      "message_id": "<message_id>"
    },
    "name": "gapify_delete_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`account_id`	Yes	The numeric ID of the account
`message_id`	Yes	The numeric ID of the message
`conversation_id`	Yes	The numeric ID of the conversation

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the deletion also removes attachments, the auth requirement (User API key via `api-access-token` header), and that deletion is permanent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the endpoint and auth note. The 'Destructive: this permanently deletes the resource' line partially repeats the destructiveHint annotation, and the Persian/Arabic-Indic digit note reads as generic boilerplate, but overall the description stays compact.

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?

For a simple delete with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is nearly complete: it states the resource, the cascading attachment removal, permanence, and auth. It only lacks explicit usage routing against alternatives, which is minor here.

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 description coverage is 100% with all three IDs documented, so the baseline is 3. The URL template implicitly maps account_id/conversation_id/message_id as path parameters, but the description adds no semantics (e.g., format or ID sources) beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Delete a message and its attachments from a conversation'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like gapify_get_messages, gapify_create_message, and gapify_client_update_message, and the endpoint line reinforces exactly which resource is removed.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The delete intent is implied and unambiguous for this operation, but the description offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternatives (e.g., that it cannot be undone, or that attachments are removed alongside the message). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server