whatsmcp

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.

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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the admin-privilege requirement, which is not in the annotations. It does not disclose behavior on invalid members, partial failures, or whether removal is reversible, so it adds only modest value.

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, zero filler, with the action stated first and the privilege precondition second. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 a full schema and an output schema present, the description only needs to cover purpose, precondition, and routing. It covers purpose and precondition well; the remaining gap is the absence of sibling routing against wa_update_participants, which is a minor but real omission for a mutation tool.

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%, with each parameter documented (members format, group JID form, account reference), so the baseline is 3. The description's 'by phone number or JID' merely restates what the members schema already specifies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove members from a WhatsApp group') plus the accepted identifier forms (phone number or JID). It is clearly distinguishable from list-oriented siblings like wa_list_group_members, but it never names the closest sibling, wa_update_participants, which also mutates group membership.

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?

Gives one real precondition — 'The account must be a group admin' — which is genuinely useful context. However, it offers no when-to-use vs. wa_update_participants or wa_leave_chat guidance, and no exclusions or failure conditions, leaving the agent to infer which membership tool to pick.

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?