neuron_send_reactionSend or remove an emoji reaction on a WhatsApp message. Pass an empty emoji string to remove a reaction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | Chat JID (e.g. '2348012345678@s.whatsapp.net' or group JID) | |
| emoji | Yes | Emoji character (e.g. '👍', '❤️'), or empty string to remove reaction | |
| channelId | Yes | WhatsApp channel identifier (UUID) | |
| messageId | Yes | WhatsApp message ID to react to |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool both sends and removes reactions, which is consistent with annotations but doesn't provide novel behavioral context beyond what annotations and schema already convey.
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 core purpose, and every word is essential. No wasted text.
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?
The description is complete for a simple tool with no output schema. It covers the main action and the special removal case, leaving no ambiguity.
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 coverage is 100% with full parameter descriptions. The description redundantly states the empty string behavior for removal, which is already in the schema. No new semantics added.
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?
Clearly states the action 'send or remove an emoji reaction on a WhatsApp message'. The verb and resource are specific, and it uniquely identifies the tool among siblings which include generic send_message and send_sticker.
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?
Provides guidance on how to remove a reaction by passing an empty emoji string. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the dual function is well explained.
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.