React to a message with an emoji (or remove your reaction by passing an empty emoji). Requires chat_jid + message_id.
Bulk support: accepts message_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| emoji | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| chat_jid | Yes | ||
| message_id | Yes | ||
| message_ids | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are all false and provide no info, so the description carries the burden. It discloses two key behaviors: empty emoji removes the reaction, and bulk execution is supported. It does not mention side effects like visibility or permissions, but these are not dramatic for a reaction tool. The added behaviors go beyond the schema and annotations, warranting a 4.
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 extremely concise—two sentences—and front-loads the primary action. Every sentence adds value: the first states the core function plus removal, the second notes bulk. No redundant or promotional language.
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?
With 5 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description covers the essential behaviors (react, remove, bulk) and identifies required inputs. It lacks details on the emoji format and account parameter, but the tool is relatively simple. Given the complexity, it is fairly complete, earning a 4.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the required pair (chat_jid, message_id) and the bulk parameter (message_ids), but does not explain emoji (though its purpose is evident from the description) or account. Partial coverage, hence a 3.
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 purpose: 'React to a message with an emoji' and includes the removal case via empty emoji. It references the specific resource (message) and distinguishes it from siblings like whatsapp_message_edit or whatsapp_send_media by focusing on reactions.
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?
It provides explicit usage context: requires chat_jid + message_id, and mentions bulk support via message_ids. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when this tool applies. Slightly below a 5 due to missing exclusion statements.
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.
There are many flattened action variants (e.g., whatsapp_chat_archive, whatsapp_chat_unarchive, whatsapp_chat_pin, etc.) that duplicate the same underlying action with similar descriptions, making it easy to select the wrong tool. However, some tools like whatsapp_send_text vs whatsapp_send_media are clearly distinct, and the group management tools share a common action pattern.
Most tools follow a consistent `whatsapp_<resource>_<action>` pattern (e.g., whatsapp_chats, whatsapp_messages, whatsapp_group_members), with flattening creating multiple tools from the same action set. A few exceptions like `authenticate`, `connect`, `marketplace` break the pattern, but the WhatsApp-specific tools are largely consistent.
47 tools is substantial, and many are flattened action variants (e.g., 6 chat state tools for archive/unarchive/pin/unpin/mute/unmute) that could be consolidated. The sheer number makes the tool list difficult to navigate, especially with non-WhatsApp tools like authenticate, marketplace, and report_bug mixed in. This feels over-scoped for a WhatsApp server.
The tool set covers core WhatsApp workflows: reading chats, contacts, groups, messages, sending messages/media, reacting, polls, search, history backfill, webhooks, and config. Minor gaps include lack of explicit voice message sending and perhaps advanced group settings, but most lifecycle operations are present.