list_messagesLista o historico de mensagens do numero-ponte (recebidas e enviadas), mais recentes primeiro. Use para decidir a quem responder com reply.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximo de mensagens (1 a 100). | |
| since | No | Timestamp ISO 8601; retorna apenas mensagens posteriores. | |
| owner_phone | No | Numero do dono (so digitos, como texto ou numero). Passe para reativar a conta se a sessao MCP for nova (clientes stateless). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds context about the source (numero-ponte) and ordering (most recent first) beyond what annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) provide. It does not contradict annotations.
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?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with core functionality and no wasted words. It is maximally concise while conveying essential information.
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 simple list operation with readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adequately covers the purpose and usage context. It lacks explanation of 'numero-ponte' but is otherwise complete given the tool's simplicity.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add any additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, aligning with the baseline of 3.
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 clearly states it lists message history (both received and sent) from a bridge number, most recent first, and explicitly mentions its use in deciding who to reply to with `reply`. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like send, reply, and schedule.
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?
The description explicitly says 'Use para decidir a quem responder com `reply`', providing clear guidance on when to use this tool. While it doesn't list when not to use or alternative tools, the context is sufficient for a list operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: provisioning, verification, sending, replying, scheduling, cancellation, listing schedules, viewing status, and browsing messages. There is no ambiguity between them.
Most names follow a verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., cancel_schedule, list_messages). A few are single verbs (provision, reply, schedule, send) or a noun (status), creating minor inconsistency but still understandable.
9 tools is well-scoped for a WhatsApp messaging/scheduling service. Each tool addresses a distinct operation without being excessive or sparse.
The surface covers the full lifecycle: account setup (provision, verify), messaging (send, reply), scheduling (schedule, list, cancel), status checking, and message history. No obvious gaps for the stated domain.