Skip to main content
Glama

Hermoso

by io.github.hermoso-ai

WhatsApp Business accounts and numbers

list_whatsapp_accounts
Read-only

The WhatsApp Business Accounts SHARED WITH THIS BRAND and the phone numbers registered on each — the ids every other WhatsApp tool needs, plus each number’s QUALITY RATING, which is what decides how many messages Meta will let it send. Start here. A WABA with no number cannot send anything and the reply says so: Hermoso does not register or verify numbers, that is WhatsApp Manager. A business portfolio that could not be read is REPORTED rather than dropped — an account missing from this list would read as "the brand has no WhatsApp", which is a claim about their business and not about our read. TWO ACCOUNTS CAN CARRY THE SAME DISPLAY NAME — always quote the display field or the id when naming one to a user, never the bare name. ONLY THE ACCOUNTS SHARED WITH THIS BRAND ARE REACHABLE. One Meta login often administers WhatsApp for several businesses, so a human ticks which belong to this brand under Settings ▸ Connectors ▸ Meta ▸ Manage accounts (or set_connector_accounts(provider:"meta")); nothing else here can see or touch the rest. With none ticked every WhatsApp tool refuses and names that as the way out. With exactly ONE ticked, wabaId is optional — pass it only to disambiguate. Read-only, 0 credits (WhatsApp conversations are billed by META to the business directly, never in Hermoso credits). Needs Meta connected.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already convey read-only and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds substantial context: quality rating gates sending capacity, unreadable portfolios are reported rather than dropped, duplicate display names are possible, and only brand-shared accounts are reachable. It also clarifies billing, saying conversations are billed by Meta and this tool costs 0 credits.

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 description is long and uses heavy emphasis, but nearly every sentence carries a distinct operational implication for a tool that sits at the entry point of all WhatsApp workflows. Some redundancy exists, such as restating that only shared accounts are reachable after already leading with that point, but the structure front-loads the core purpose and progressively layers edge cases.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the full explanatory burden and meets it: return contents, quality rating significance, setup requirements, failure semantics, duplicate-name caution, and credit implications are all covered. An agent has what it needs to call this tool correctly and interpret results appropriately.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description still adds meaningful field-level context by naming `display`, `wabaId`, and quality rating, and explains when wabaId may be omitted (exactly one account ticked) or needed (to disambiguate).

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-resource pair: lists WhatsApp Business accounts shared with the brand and their registered phone numbers, plus quality ratings. It clearly distinguishes its scope from other WhatsApp tools by emphasizing "SHARED WITH THIS BRAND" and by noting it provides the IDs other WhatsApp tools need.

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 instructs "Start here," explains what happens when no accounts are ticked (every WhatsApp tool refuses), and describes when wabaId is optional versus needed. It also directs users to the exact configuration path and the alternative tool set_connector_accounts for managing account selection.

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

All Hermoso toolsInspect
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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

With 293 tools, the surface is enormous and many tools have overlapping purposes—multiple posting tools (post_to_meta, post_to_linkedin, schedule_post, etc.), multiple analytics tools per channel, and several search tools (search_meta_ads, search_instagram, search_reddit...). While each description is detailed, the volume makes it difficult for an agent to reliably distinguish between similar tools without careful reading, leading to frequent misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming is largely consistent with a verb_noun pattern (post_to_*, list_*, create_*, delete_*, update_*, manage_*). There are clear families for major operations. A few outliers like 'google_business_account', 'hermoso_capabilities', and 'store_get' break the pattern, but the overwhelming majority follow a predictable structure, making navigation somewhat easier.

Tool Count1/5

293 tools is far beyond any reasonable scope for a single MCP server, even for a comprehensive marketing platform. The calibration guide flags 50+ as an extreme mismatch, and this is nearly six times that threshold. Such a large surface overwhelms context windows, increases the probability of misselection, and makes it impractical for agents to learn or use effectively.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a vast domain: ad creation and rendering, posting across nine+ social channels, analytics and reporting, file management (Drive/OneDrive), competitor research, brand management, and more. It appears to provide CRUD and lifecycle coverage for most resources. While there may be minor gaps given the immense scope, the overall coverage is impressively comprehensive.

Resources