Skip to main content
Glama

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

TableJSON 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_idYesthe account, as returned by wa_list_accounts
message_idYesWhatsApp's id for the message, as returned by wa_send_message or seen in wa_list_messages

Output Schema

TableJSON 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. 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

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds real context beyond that: an empty reaction deletes a previously sent reaction, and only your own reaction can be removed. It does not say whether reacting twice replaces the prior emoji, which would clarify the idempotency hint.

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 sentences, no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded before the less common removal path. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 an output schema present the return shape needn't be explained, and the schema carries the chat/sender/account_id constraints. The description is nearly complete for a small mutation tool; the only gap is the absence of any note on the channel limitation or on what happens to an existing reaction when a non-empty one is sent.

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 are already documented, including the empty-string removal semantics for 'reaction' and the group-only 'sender' rule. The description's mention of the empty reaction merely duplicates the schema, adding no format or constraint detail beyond it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource (react to a WhatsApp message with an emoji) and adds the inverse operation (removing a reaction via an empty value). It is unambiguous on its own, but it never references the nearby siblings wa_send_message, wa_edit_message, or wa_delete_message, which handle adjacent message mutations.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: you call it when you want to add a reaction, and the second sentence covers the removal case. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' routing, and the channel-message restriction that would steer the agent away lives only in the schema, not the description.

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