WhatsMCP: MCP for WhatsApp

Remove Participants

wa_remove_participants

Destructive

Remove members from a WhatsApp group by phone number or JID. The account must be a group admin.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`members`	Yes	members — phone numbers (E.164) or JIDs, comma- or space-separated
`group_jid`	Yes	the group (…@g.us) JID, as returned by wa_list_groups
`account_id`	Yes	the account, 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

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'Remove members' aligns with those. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the admin requirement, which is a critical behavioral precondition. It does not contradict annotations.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, and the admin requirement is placed at the end. There is no redundant or verbose content, and every word adds value.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the annotations cover the destructive nature, the description is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It covers the core action and the admin requirement. A minor gap is that it does not mention what happens if a member is not found or if the operation is irreversible, but destructiveHint implies permanence, so this is not a critical omission.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already explained (e.g., members as phone numbers/JIDs, group_jid and account_id as returned by list tools). The description does not add any additional parameter meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance the schema information.

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 clear verb ('Remove'), a specific resource ('members from a WhatsApp group'), and the method ('by phone number or JID'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like wa_delete_group (deleting the group) and wa_update_participants (which likely handles adding/removing), so an agent can easily identify its specific role.

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 provides a key prerequisite ('The account must be a group admin') which helps an agent know when this tool is applicable. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., wa_update_participants) or state when not to use this tool, leaving some ambiguity for an agent choosing among participant-related operations.

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?