Skip to main content
Glama
razvangirgiz

wazap-mcp

by razvangirgiz

Delete a WhatsApp message

delete_message
DestructiveIdempotent

Retract or remove a message within the chat. Delete it for everyone globally (up to 2 days) or limit deletion to only linked devices.

Instructions

Delete a message; confirm with the user first. for_everyone: true retracts it for everyone within 2 days: the account's own message, or anyone's in a group where it is admin. for_everyone: false removes any message from the linked account's devices only.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
account_idNo
message_idYes
for_everyoneYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
account_idYes
message_idYes
for_everyoneYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.6.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / account_id / description
      Removed value: -"Account id"
  2. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.0.3
    • changedInput schema / properties / account_id / description
      Previous value: -"Registry account id (default, work, …). Omit to resolve from chat_id or message_id, or the default account."New value: +"Account id"
    • removedInput schema / properties / for_everyone / description
      Removed value: -"Required. true retracts it for everyone in the chat; false deletes it for the linked account only"
    • removedInput schema / properties / message_id / description
      Removed value: -"Message id from read_messages / search_messages / get_message, e.g. \"false_4072...@s.whatsapp.net_3EB0...\""
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
      +  "additionalProperties": false,
      +  "properties": {
      +    "account_id": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "for_everyone": {
      +      "type": "boolean"
      +    },
      +    "message_id": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "required": [
      +    "message_id",
      +    "for_everyone",
      +    "account_id"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  3. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.21.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / for_everyone / default
      Removed value: -false
    • changedInput schema / properties / for_everyone / description
      Previous value: -"Retract for all participants (WhatsApp supports no other kind of delete here)"New value: +"Required. true retracts it for everyone in the chat; false deletes it for the linked account only"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
      -  "message_id"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "message_id",
      +  "for_everyone"
      +]
  4. Changed1 schema field changedv0.15.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / account_id
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Registry account id (default, work, …). Omit to resolve from chat_id or message_id, or the default account.",
      +  "minLength": 1,
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  5. First observedv0.9.3

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses the 2-day retraction window, the permission rule (own message or group admin), the limited blast radius of the local-delete mode, and the requirement to confirm with the user. These are exactly the facts an agent needs before performing an irreversible action.

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?

The critical safety instruction (confirm first) and the primary parameter are front-loaded, and no sentence is filler. The second half is a dense run-on clause chain, but every clause carries distinct information about scope and permissions.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with an output schema, the description covers confirmation, permission scope, time limits, and deletion breadth. Only the account_id parameter and multi-device/account selection semantics are left implicit.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden; it does so thoroughly for for_everyeen (both boolean values, their effects, and their eligibility constraints). message_id and account_id remain semantically unexplained beyond their names, which is a small residual gap.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ("Delete a message") and immediately distinguishes the two deletion scopes via for_everyone. It is clearly separable from siblings like edit_message or send_message, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives a concrete operational precondition ("confirm with the user first") and explains which mode applies when: for_everyone:true only within 2 days and only for one's own message or as a group admin; for_everyone:false for any message on the linked account's devices. Missing only an explicit comparison to alternative tools (e.g. edit_message) when a message should be changed rather than removed.

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