Recall a specific message by its ID to remove it from the chat history. Use when you need to delete an unwanted or erroneous message.
Recall message
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message_id | Yes | Message ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Recall' implies a destructive or mutating action, but the description does not state whether the action is irreversible, what exactly happens to the message for recipients, what permissions are required, or what errors may occur.
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?
'Recall message' is under-specified rather than usefully concise. It essentially restates the tool's purpose with no additional structure, context, or qualifiers, so it does not earn its place as a complete description.
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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description leaves important operational details unstated, such as side effects, reversibility, restrictions, and failure behavior. Although the tool has only one parameter, the context provided is too thin for an agent to invoke it with full confidence.
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 already documents the only parameter, message_id, with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about how to obtain or use message_id beyond what the schema provides.
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 uses a specific verb, 'Recall,' with the resource 'message,' which clearly conveys the core operation of deleting or withdrawing a message. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like get_msg or delete_essence_msg, but the meaning is reasonably unambiguous.
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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or restrictions such as whether only own messages can be recalled or whether time limits apply. The agent gets no context for choosing or invoking this tool safely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.