Skip to main content
Glama

WhatsMCP: MCP for WhatsApp

Follow Channel

wa_follow_channel

Follow a WhatsApp Channel from one of your accounts using its link.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
account_idYesthe account to follow from, as returned by wa_list_accounts
channel_linkYesthe channel link (https://whatsapp.com/channel/…) or bare invite key

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsNothe rows of a list operation
statusYesok (the operation succeeded) or refused (see refusal; for wa_update_group, applied lists the changes that took effect before it)
appliedNowa_update_group only: the settings that were changed, in order — on a refusal, the ones that took effect before it
refusalNopresent only when status is refused
summaryNoa human-readable result
group_jidNothe new group's JID (wa_create_group only) — use it as wa_send_message's 'to'
invite_linkNothe group's invite link (wa_create_group or wa_get_group_invite_link)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / applied
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "wa_update_group only: the settings that were changed, in order — on a refusal, the ones that took effect before it",
      +  "items": {
      +    "type": "string"
      +  },
      +  "type": [
      +    "null",
      +    "array"
      +  ]
      +}
    • changedOutput schema / properties / status / description
      Previous value: -"ok (the operation succeeded) or refused (nothing was done)"New value: +"ok (the operation succeeded) or refused (see refusal; for wa_update_group, applied lists the changes that took effect before it)"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds little behavioral context beyond the action itself, such as whether re-following is safe or likely to error, but it does not contradict the annotations and accurately implies a state-changing operation.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and then provides the key prerequisites. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 simple tool with fully documented parameters, annotations, and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It could have added explicit guidance about behaviors like duplicate follows, but the existing schema and annotations cover most of the operational context an agent needs.

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%, with both account_id and channel_link described clearly. The description reinforces the parameters but does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly identifies the action (Follow), the resource (a WhatsApp Channel), and the source context (from one of your accounts using its link). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wa_join_group and wa_list_channels without ambiguity.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: an account must be specified and a channel link or invite key is required. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the operation is narrow enough that the intended usage is evident.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources