whatsmcp

Get Profile

wa_get_profile

Read-only

Look up who a phone number is on WhatsApp, from one of your accounts: whether it is registered, its public name, about text, profile picture and — for a business — its categories, contact details and hours. An empty about or picture means the peer has not shared it with this account, not that it has none.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`phone`	No	the number to look up, in international form (e.g. +447700900111)
`account_id`	Yes	which of your accounts to ask from, from wa_list_accounts

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`jid`	No
`name`	No	the best available public name
`note`	No
`about`	No	the peer's status text, when they let this account see it
`phone`	No
`refusal`	No	present only when the request was declined
`business`	No	present only for a business account
`is_business`	No	true or false when known; ABSENT means the lookup could not establish it (see note) — absence is not a no
`name_source`	No	business or none — a verified business name is vouched for by WhatsApp; "none" means nothing public is published
`on_whatsapp`	Yes	false means the number is not registered on WhatsApp at all
`picture_url`	No	a WhatsApp-hosted URL that expires; fetch it promptly

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 14, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / refusal / properties / account_status

Added value: +{
+  "description": "when the number is not working: its status — starting, not_running, whatsapp_down, suspended, pairing, unlinked or locked",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / refusal / properties / account_status_reason

Added value: +{
+  "description": "the detail of account_status, e.g. no_egress, stopped, no_plan",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / refusal / properties / since

Added value: +{
+  "description": "when the number stopped working, RFC3339, when known",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedSep 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral caveat: an empty about or picture reflects non-sharing with this account rather than absence of the data, which prevents misreading the result. It stops short of describing rate limits or failure modes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first front-loads the lookup and its output fields, the second handles the one ambiguity that matters. Slightly dense in the enumeration of business fields, but no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, yet the description still enumerates the key fields which aids selection. Between annotations, full schema coverage, and the empty-field caveat, an agent has what it needs; only explicit alternative-tool routing is absent.

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%, so the baseline is 3: the schema already documents 'phone' as international form and 'account_id' as sourced from wa_list_accounts. The description echoes the account-scoping idea but contributes no additional syntax or format detail beyond what the schema supplies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Look up who a phone number is on WhatsApp') plus an explicit inventory of what is returned (registered status, public name, about, picture, business categories/hours). This clearly separates it from siblings like wa_get_chat, wa_list_contacts, or wa_list_accounts, so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'from one of your accounts' implies the account-scoped lookup context and the description effectively defines the retrieve-one-peer use case, but it never states when to prefer this over wa_get_chat or wa_list_contacts, nor any preconditions. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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

All whatsmcp 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?