Skip to main content
Glama

List Group Members

wa_list_group_members
Read-only

List a group's members. Each item is one participant with their JID, phone number (in 'name'), and an 'admin' flag.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
group_jidYesthe group (…@g.us) JID, as returned by wa_list_groups
account_idYesthe account, as returned by wa_list_accounts

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. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • 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"
      +}
  2. First observed

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 useful output behavior by naming the per-participant fields (JID, phone number stored in 'name', admin flag), which goes beyond the annotations and helps an agent interpret results.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the return shape. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies the key remaining context: the identity of each item and where the phone number is stored. Nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly appears 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (group_jid, account_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about their format, sourcing, or constraints, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List a group's members') and makes the target collection unambiguous relative to sibling list tools like wa_list_groups. An agent can immediately tell this returns the participant set of one group rather than groups or chats.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The purpose strongly implies usage, but the description never states when to choose this over related tools such as wa_get_chat or wa_list_contacts.

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