Local MCP

WhatsApp Send Poll

whatsapp_send_poll

Destructive

Sends a poll to a WhatsApp chat/group — everyone in the chat sees it. chat_id MUST come from whatsapp_list_chats / whatsapp_list_groups. It is a write operation: the first call (confirm=false) returns a preview without sending; set confirm=true to actually send. Give 2–12 options; set multi>1 to allow picking several. Read results later with whatsapp_read_poll (whose count is indicative — see that tool).

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`multi`	No	Max options a voter may pick (1 = single-select, default 1)
`account`	No	Which linked WhatsApp account to use: its label or id from whatsapp_list_accounts. Leave it out to use the default account.
`chat_id`	Yes	Chat/group JID from whatsapp_list_chats/whatsapp_list_groups
`confirm`	No	Must be true to actually send. Without it, returns a preview.
`options`	Yes	2–12 poll options
`question`	Yes	Poll question
`remember`	No	With confirm: true, also stop asking for this kind of action from now on. Only when the person said so ("don't ask again"). The person can revoke it in LMCP or with set_always_allowed.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 24, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / remember

Added value: +{
+  "description": "With confirm: true, also stop asking for this kind of action from now on. Only when the person said so (\"don't ask again\"). The person can revoke it in LMCP or with set_always_allowed.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 10, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / account

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Which linked WhatsApp account to use: its label or id from whatsapp_list_accounts. Leave it out to use the default account.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

AddedSep 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare write and destructive traits, but the description adds valuable behavior: the two-step preview/confirm flow and that everyone in the chat sees the poll. It also notes the result-count caveat of whatsapp_read_poll, which is not captured in any structured field.

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?

Five sentences, each front-loaded with essential information: purpose, prerequisite, confirm flow, option constraints, and result reading. No fluff or redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (write operation, 7 parameters, output schema, annotations), the description covers all critical aspects: what it does, how to obtain chat_id, the preview/confirm step, option limits, and where to read results. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description largely repeats schema details (e.g., options range, multi behavior, chat_id source), adding little new semantics beyond what is already documented in the input 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Sends a poll') and resource ('WhatsApp chat/group'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinguishable from siblings like whatsapp_send_message or whatsapp_send_file.

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?

It provides clear context: chat_id must come from whatsapp_list_chats/whatsapp_list_groups, and the confirm=true step is required to actually send. It also directs users to whatsapp_read_poll for results, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative sending tools (e.g., when to use a poll vs a regular message).

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

All Local MCP 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.