WhatsMCP: MCP for WhatsApp

List Groups

wa_list_groups

Read-only

List the groups one of your accounts has joined, with each group's JID, name and member count.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`account_id`	Yes	the account whose groups to list, as returned by wa_list_accounts

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`items`	No	the rows of a list operation
`status`	Yes	ok (the operation succeeded) or refused (see refusal; for wa_update_group, applied lists the changes that took effect before it)
`applied`	No	wa_update_group only: the settings that were changed, in order — on a refusal, the ones that took effect before it
`refusal`	No	present only when status is refused
`summary`	No	a human-readable result
`group_jid`	No	the new group's JID (wa_create_group only) — use it as wa_send_message's 'to'
`invite_link`	No	the group's invite link (wa_create_group or wa_get_group_invite_link)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 22, 2026

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)"

First observedSep 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is established without the description. The description adds the useful constraint that only groups the account has joined are returned, but it does not disclose pagination, ordering, or error behavior. This is acceptable given the annotations, though not deeply rich.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, includes the scope and output fields, and contains zero filler. It is as concise as possible while still being informative.

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 tool with only one parameter, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the core purpose and output details. It omits minor information like pagination or sorting, but the simplicity of the tool and presence of an output schema make this sufficient for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the account_id parameter is already well-documented in the schema as 'the account whose groups to list, as returned by wa_list_accounts'. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond echoing 'one of your accounts', 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 states the action ('List'), the resource ('groups'), and the exact scope ('one of your accounts has joined'). It also names the returned fields (JID, name, member count), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like wa_list_group_members that list members rather than groups.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context by specifying 'one of your accounts' and naming the account_id in the schema, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like wa_create_group or wa_update_group. There is no exclusion or mention of alternative tools, leaving some inference required.

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

All WhatsMCP: MCP for WhatsApp 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?