List WhatsApp chats (individual + group). Sorted by most recent activity.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "whatsapp_chats"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| archived | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it's sorted by most recent activity, which is useful behavioral information. However, it doesn't mention default limits, pagination, or what fields are returned. Since annotations carry the safety burden, this is adequate but not rich.
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, action-first, no fluff. Efficiently communicates the core purpose. Perfectly concise.
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 simple list tool, the description covers the purpose but omits parameter behaviors, output format, and any nuances like whether archived chats are included by default. Since there's no output schema, the description should at least hint at what the list contains. It doesn't.
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?
The input schema has 3 parameters (limit, account, archived) with no descriptions. The description does not mention them at all. Schema coverage is 0%. The description should explain what these parameters do, especially 'account' and 'archived' which are non-obvious. This is a major gap.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List WhatsApp chats' with the additional detail that both individual and group chats are includedcars and sorted by most recent activity. It uses a specific verb (List) and resource (WhatsApp chats), distinguishing it from siblings like whatsapp_groups or whatsapp_contacts_list.
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?
The description implies usage for listing all chats but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like whatsapp_groups or whatsapp_contacts_list. It gives context (lists both individual and group) but no exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance. A clear 'use this for the chat overview' would push it higher.
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.