List WhatsApp conversations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | The cursor from the previous page of THIS same query. It is only valid while the filters stay identical — if you change, add, or drop a filter, start over with no cursor. Reusing one across a filter change returns INVALID_CURSOR. | |
| status | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| success | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral detail such as pagination behavior, cursor requirements, or how status filtering affects results. It does not disclose that the tool returns a paginated list or that the cursor must remain consistent.
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 concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately brief, though it under-specifies for a tool of this complexity. As a concise statement it is acceptable.
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?
The tool has three optional parameters, pagination via cursor, and a sibling get tool. The description does not mention that it returns a paginated list, that the cursor must be reused only with identical filters, or that status can filter results. Even though an output schema exists, the description lacks operational context needed for correct invocation.
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 only 33% (only cursor has a description). The tool description provides no explanation of limit, status, or cursor semantics, and does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation. An agent gets no help understanding what these parameters do beyond the bare 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 states a clear verb and resource: 'List WhatsApp conversations.' It is distinct from the sibling get_whatsapp_conversation by name, but the description does not explicitly call out that differentiation. The purpose is understandable, though minimal.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of filtering, pagination, or that get_whatsapp_conversation is for a single conversation. The plural vs singular is only implied by the tool name, not the description.
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.