statusMostra o estado da conta Kontato: ativa ou nao, numero-ponte, e os schedules (rotinas) ja registrados. Use para honrar a regra turn-based: antes de dizer que algo sera entregue "todo dia", confirme aqui se existe um schedule ativo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds context about what is returned (account status, bridge number, schedules), which is useful. No behavioral contradictions detected.
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 extremely concise: two sentences without any wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides a direct usage guideline. Excellent front-loading.
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?
While the description covers the key information, it lacks details on the return structure (no output schema). Also, there is potential overlap with list_schedules that is not clarified. For a simple tool, it is adequate but not fully complete.
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 coverage is 100%, and the parameter description already explains the purpose and usage of owner_phone (reactivation for stateless clients). The tool description does not add further parameter semantics beyond the schema.
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 shows account status, bridge number, and schedules. It uses a specific verb 'mostra' and names the resources. It distinguishes from siblings like list_schedules by including schedules as part of a broader status check, but could more explicitly differentiate when to use this vs list_schedules alone.
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 provides an explicit rule: 'Use para honrar a regra turn-based: antes de dizer que algo sera entregue todo dia, confirme aqui se existe um schedule ativo.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool.
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.