neuron_add_bot_channelConnect an additional WhatsApp channel to a bot as a secondary number. The bot will respond to messages on this channel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| botId | Yes | Unique identifier (UUID) of the bot | |
| channelId | Yes | Unique identifier (UUID) of the WhatsApp channel to connect |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds that the bot will respond to messages, which clarifies behavior beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it disconnects existing channels) or error conditions. Annotations are present but not contradicted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action. No extra words, every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and a behavioral trait (bot responds), but omits details like return format or error handling. Could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description does not add any further semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool connects an additional WhatsApp channel to a bot as a secondary number. It specifies the resource (bot and channel) and the action (connect), and distinguishes from siblings like 'assign_bot_to_channel' by emphasizing 'additional' and 'secondary number'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies the tool is for adding a secondary channel (not the first), but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. siblings like 'assign_bot_to_channel'. No prerequisites or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly separated by resource type, but there is meaningful overlap in messaging entry points (send_message, send_whatsapp, compose_message, bot_api_send) and contact ingestion/sync tools (import_contacts, populate_contacts, sync_whatsapp_contacts). The descriptions help disambiguate, but with 309 tools an agent will frequently need to read closely to pick the right one.
The overwhelming majority of tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: create_*, get_*, list_*, update_*, delete_*. Minor deviations like sales_stats, lead_stats, wallet_balance, and whoami break the pattern slightly, but overall naming is highly predictable.
309 tools is an extreme count for any MCP server, even a broad platform. This creates significant cognitive load and navigation overhead for agents, and far exceeds the well-scoped 3-15 tool range where coherence is strongest.
The tool surface is remarkably comprehensive across bots, contacts, campaigns, flows, knowledge bases, personas, marketplace, wallet, and products. Minor gaps exist — lead sources lack update/delete tools, and there is no single get_task or get_webhook alongside their list/update/delete counterparts — but these are workable gaps rather than dead ends.