neuron

Send Sticker

neuron_send_sticker

Send a sticker via WhatsApp. The easy way: pass sticker as a mood or label (e.g. 'laughing', 'thumbs up', 'fire', 'celebrate') and a matching sticker is found automatically from the platform-wide community sticker library (falling back to this org's own stickers). Advanced: pass stickerUrl with a direct public WebP image URL instead. Provide one of the two. Only supported on Baileys channels.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	Yes	Recipient JID or phone number
`sticker`	No	Mood or label to auto-match a sticker (e.g. 'laughing', 'fire', 'celebrate'). Preferred over stickerUrl.
`channelId`	Yes	WhatsApp channel identifier (UUID)
`stickerUrl`	No	Advanced: direct URL to a public WebP sticker image. Use only if no mood/label fits.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses useful behavior beyond the annotations: automatic sticker matching from the community library, fallback to the org's own stickers, the requirement for a direct public WebP URL, and the Baileys-only platform limitation. Since annotations are all false and carry little weight, this behavioral context is valuable, though it omits what happens if both parameters are provided or if the operation fails.

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?

Three compact sentences, each earning its place. The purpose is front-loaded, the two usage modes are clearly separated, and the platform constraint closes the description without redundancy.

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?

For a send operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: both input strategies, the one-of-two requirement, and an important platform constraint. It does not describe return values or errors, but given the schema richness and the simple action, it is largely complete.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful relationship semantics: it frames `sticker` as the easy/preferred path and `stickerUrl` as the advanced fallback, and states they are mutually exclusive. This goes beyond the individual property descriptions in the schema.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Send a sticker via WhatsApp.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from the many sibling send tools (send_message, send_contact_card, send_poll) by the sticker-specific action and the two input modes it describes.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives strong usage context: the easy mode via `sticker`, the advanced mode via `stickerUrl`, the requirement to provide one of the two, and the Baileys-channel constraint. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative send tools or state when *not* to use this tool, so a clear exclusion is missing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All neuron tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?