Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

whatsmcp

by com.whatsmcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Report to WhatsMCP

wa_report

Send a bug report, feature request or feedback about WhatsMCP to the WhatsMCP team. Use it when the person asks to report a problem, suggest a feature or leave feedback — not to contact a WhatsApp user (that is wa_send_message). The report is emailed to the team with the workspace and the sender's address, so a reply reaches the person by email. Write it in the person's words; for a bug include what was done, what happened, what was expected and any error text. Never include passwords, API keys or message contents the person did not ask to share.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYeswhat kind of report this is,enum=bug,enum=feature_request,enum=feedback
titleYesa one-line summary, at most 120 characters
messageYesthe report itself, at most 5000 characters: for a bug, what was done, what happened and what was expected, and which number it was on

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusYesok when the report was accepted for delivery, refused when it was not
messageNowhat happens next, for the person
refusalNopresent only when the report was not sent

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. Changed1 schema field changed
    • 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. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the real side effect and its destination: the report is emailed to the team along with the workspace and the sender's address, so a reply reaches the person by email. It also adds a data-handling constraint (never include passwords, API keys or unshared message contents), which annotations do not express. It does not mention rate limits or duplicate-submission behavior, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The core purpose and the sibling exclusion are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the later sentences each add non-redundant rules (email routing, bug template, privacy). It runs five sentences and could be tightened, but no sentence is filler.

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 three-parameter write tool that has an output schema, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly: trigger conditions, the sibling to avoid, where the report goes, what metadata is attached automatically, how to compose the body, and what must never be included.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description earns above that by telling the agent how to fill the message field for bugs (what was done, what happened, what was expected, error text) and by imposing a content exclusion rule that no schema constraint expresses. It adds writing guidance rather than restating field names.

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 ('send a bug report, feature request or feedback about WhatsMCP') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling that could be confused with it ('not to contact a WhatsApp user (that is wa_send_message)'). An agent can route between the two without inspecting either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly names the triggering conditions ('when the person asks to report a problem, suggest a feature or leave feedback') and names the excluded alternative with the condition that selects it. Both the when and the when-not are present.

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