Tulina

whatsapp_act

Destructive

⚠️ SENDS a WHATSAPP message via Unipile, from the person's own account — it leaves at once, there is no draft. Reading is whatsapp.

op:

"send" (default): sends text. chat_id → replies in an existing thread, 1-to-1 or group (from whatsapp(op="list")); otherwise recipient_id → opens a new thread with that contact.

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": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "whatsapp_act"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`op`	No		send
`_org`	No	Org (id) de CET APPEL. `oto_list_orgs()`.
`text`	Yes
`_group`	No	Équipe (id) de CET APPEL, sous son org parente.
`_run_id`	No	OBLIGATOIRE à chaque appel dès `run_start` ou `data_claim_next` : sans lui, l'écriture sur une ligne réservée est refusée. Hérité seulement si le serveur tient un run actif — n'y compte pas.
`chat_id`	No
`_account`	No	Compte à OPÉRER quand plusieurs existent. `oto_identity(op='list')`.
`_project`	No	Projet (id) de CET APPEL — jeton PRIMAIRE. `oto_project(op='list')`.
`_instance`	No	Instance de connecteur PRÉCISE (un credential exact). `oto_instance(op='list')`.
`recipient_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: the message is dispatched immediately with no draft step, and it is sent from the user's own account (an impersonation/auth disclosure that annotations cannot convey). This complements destructiveHint=true well, though it says nothing about failure modes, rate limits, or delivery errors.

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?

Front-loads the destructive/send warning before any parameter detail, then uses a tight bulleted block for the op semantics. No filler sentences; each clause carries either a warning or a routing rule.

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 one-operation, high-stakes send tool with no output schema, the description covers irreversibility, sender identity, and target selection. Missing only secondary details such as accepted `recipient_id` format (phone vs provider ID) and failure behavior.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Despite 60% schema coverage, the description covers every tool-specific parameter: `op` defaults to send, `text` is the payload, and `chat_id`/`recipient_id` are explained with their mutual-exclusion precedence and where chat IDs come from. The remaining undocumented params are generic infra fields (_org, _project, _run_id, etc.) already described in the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('SENDS a WHATSAPP message via Unipile, from the person's own account') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the read sibling ('Reading is `whatsapp`'). An agent can tell immediately what this does and which tool handles the read side.

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?

Gives concrete routing guidance: use `chat_id` to reply in an existing thread, otherwise `recipient_id` to open a new one, and points to `whatsapp(op="list")` as the source of chat IDs. It lacks an explicit 'do not use for X' exclusion or a confirmation/precondition note for an irreversible send.

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

All Tulina tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?