mcp-max-messenger

Edit Message

edit_message

Edit the text and optional attachments of a previously sent bot message. Uses the message ID to update content or replace inline keyboard buttons.

Instructions

Edit the text of an existing message sent by the bot. Optionally update attachments (inline keyboard buttons). Requires the message_id.

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": {
      "message_id": "<message_id>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "edit_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`message_id`	Yes	The ID of the message to edit (from send_message or get_messages)
`text`	Yes	New message text
`format`	No	Text formatting for new text
`attachments`	No	Optional new attachments (replaces existing)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.2Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations present, so description must disclose behavior. It only states editing text and attachments, but omits details like whether edits are tracked, trigger notifications, or require specific permissions. Lacks depth for a mutation tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource. No fluff, every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema, and description does not explain return value, error handling, or success/failure indications. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, more context is needed.

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 covers all 4 parameters fully, so description adds minimal value. It clarifies attachments are 'inline keyboard buttons' and 'optional', but schema already conveys this. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the tool edits the text of an existing message sent by the bot, and optionally updates attachments. The verb 'edit' and resource 'message' are specific. It implicitly distinguishes from send_message and delete_message, but doesn't explicitly contrast.

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?

Mentions requirement of message_id and that it edits bot's own messages, providing some usage context. However, it does not give explicit guidance on when not to use or suggest alternative tools like send_message for new messages.

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