Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

whatsmcp

by com.whatsmcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

React to Message

wa_react

React to a WhatsApp message with an emoji. Pass an empty reaction to remove a reaction you previously sent.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chatYesthe chat the message is in — a phone number or a group JID; reacting to a channel (@newsletter) message is not supported
senderNogroup chats only: the phone number or JID of whoever sent the original message; omit in a DM or for your own message
reactionYesthe emoji to react with; an empty string removes a reaction you previously sent
account_idNothe account, as returned by wa_list_accounts; omit it when the workspace has only one account
message_idYesWhatsApp's id for the message, as returned by wa_send_message or seen in wa_list_messages

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusYesok (the operation succeeded) or refused (nothing was done)
refusalNopresent only when status is refused
new_message_idNoWhatsApp's id for the react/edit/revoke protocol message itself

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / properties / refusal / properties / account_status / description
      Previous value: -"when the number is not working: its status — starting, not_running, whatsapp_down, suspended, pairing, unlinked or locked"New value: +"when the number is not working: its status — starting, not_running, whatsapp_down (telegram_down for a Telegram account), suspended, pairing, unlinked or locked"
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / account_id / description
      Previous value: -"the account, as returned by wa_list_accounts"New value: +"the account, as returned by wa_list_accounts; omit it when the workspace has only one account"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "account_id",
-  "chat",
-  "message_id",
-  "reaction"
-]New value: +[
+  "chat",
+  "message_id",
+  "reaction"
+]
    • addedOutput schema / properties / refusal / properties / candidates
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "on an account_ambiguous refusal: the accounts to choose from — retry with one of these as account_id",
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "properties": {
+      "account_id": {
+        "description": "the id to retry with as account_id",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "name": {
+        "description": "the account's WhatsApp display name",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "phone": {
+        "description": "the account's phone number, E.164",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "status": {
+        "description": "whether the number works right now — live, connecting, or why not, as wa_list_accounts reports it",
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "account_id"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": [
+    "null",
+    "array"
+  ]
+}
  3. 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"
+}
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that — an empty string removes a reaction, and the phrasing 'a reaction you previously sent' scopes removal to your own reactions. It does not mention error behavior or the channel limitation, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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 with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the non-obvious removal trick follows immediately. Nothing here needs trimming or reordering.

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?

With annotations, an output schema, and 100% parameter coverage already in structured fields, the description only needs to frame the action and the removal case, which it does. The one gap is the unsupported-channel constraint, which an agent would only discover by reading the chat parameter description.

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 all five parameters (including the non-obvious group-only sender and the account_id defaulting rule) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the reaction/empty-string semantics that the schema also covers, adding no new parameter meaning.

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 (react) and resource (a WhatsApp message) plus the payload (an emoji), and adds the inverse operation (empty reaction removes). No sibling tool covers reactions, so an agent can route here without ambiguity against wa_send_message, wa_edit_message, or wa_delete_message.

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 removal case is spelled out clearly, which is genuine usage guidance, but the description never names an alternative or states when not to use this tool. It also omits the channel restriction (reacting to @newsletter messages is unsupported), which lives only in the schema and is exactly the kind of routing constraint that belongs here.

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

All whatsmcp toolsInspect
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