whatsapp_send_text

Send a WhatsApp message (text or media). Actions:

text: { to, text, reply_to? }
media: { to, type ('image'|'video'|'audio'|'document'|'sticker'), media_url | media_base64, caption?, filename?, mimetype? }

to accepts either a JID ('5511999999999@s.whatsapp.net', '@g.us') or a plain phone (digits, country code included). For groups always use the '@g.us' JID — get it from whatsapp_groups.

Result: sent:true + delivery:"accepted_by_server" means WhatsApp's server accepted the message (it has an id). It is NOT a read/delivery receipt from the recipients' phones. If the message did not go out, the call fails with the reason.

[Flattened action: text]

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "to": "<to>"
    },
    "name": "whatsapp_send_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to`	Yes
`text`	No
`type`	No
`account`	No
`caption`	No
`filename`	No
`mimetype`	No
`reply_to`	No
`media_url`	No
`media_base64`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedAug 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it explains that 'sent:true' + 'delivery:"accepted_by_server"' means only server acceptance, not a recipient read/delivery receipt, and that failures raise with a reason — a non-obvious semantic an agent would otherwise misread.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then a compact per-action field map, then format rules, then result semantics. Every block is scannable and no sentence is redundant.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the sending flow, addressing formats, and return semantics well. Gaps remain on the undocumented `account` parameter and on how this tool relates to whatsapp_send_media given the 'text or media' wording.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it largely does: `to` accepts a JID or a plain digits-with-country-code phone, per-action field sets (text vs media), the enum for `type`, and the optional caption/filename/mimetype/reply_to. The `account` parameter, present in the schema, is never mentioned.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (send) and resource (WhatsApp message) and enumerates the two modes it covers, so an agent knows exactly what the call does. It is slightly muddied by claiming both 'text or media' while a sibling whatsapp_send_media exists and the payload is marked '[Flattened action: text]', leaving the text-vs-media boundary unclear.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Gives a concrete routing rule for groups ('always use the <id>@g.us JID — get it from whatsapp_groups'), which is genuinely actionable. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over whatsapp_send_media, nor are there prerequisites such as pairing/auth state, despite 'authenticate'/'connect' being siblings.

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

All WhatsApp tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.