Manage participants of a WhatsApp group (the connected account must be a group admin). action: 'remove' kicks members, 'promote' makes them admin, 'demote' removes admin, 'add' invites. Pass 1–50 phone numbers (+E164) or JIDs in users.
[Flattened action: add]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| users | Yes | ||
| account | No | ||
| group_jid | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states that the action 'add' invites users and requires admin rights, giving some idea of side effects (an invite is sent). It does not clarify whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if a number is already a member, or if it affects the group in other ways. It also doesn't indicate any destructive effects, which is consistent with the 'add' action.
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?
The description is relatively concise and covers the main points in a few lines. However, it includes an extraneous 'Flattened action: add' label that seems like an artifact and lists all possible actions, which is redundant for a tool specifically named 'add'. Structurally, it is a single paragraph without clear separation of different aspects.
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 does not explain two of the three parameters and omits any information about return values or errors. It provides context about the admin requirement and user limit, but lacking parameter coverage leaves the tool incomplete for an agent to use correctly without additional assumptions.
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?
Only the 'users' parameter is explained (as phone numbers or JIDs, 1–50 items). The 'account' and 'group_jid' parameters are never described, leaving their purpose ambiguous. Since the schema provides no descriptions, the tool description fails to clarify these essential inputs.
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 that the tool manages WhatsApp group participants and lists possible actions (remove, promote, demote, add). However, the tool name specifically says 'add', while the description enumerates all actions, which could confuse an agent about which exact operation this tool performs. The admin requirement is mentioned clearly.
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 specifies the prerequisite (must be group admin) and the input format (1–50 phone numbers or JIDs). It does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools (e.g., use this for adding members, not removing), though the name hints at it. There is no mention of error handling or edge cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.