get_messagesRetrieve WhatsApp chat messages from a specific contact or group, newest first. Use a date or timestamp to page back and access older messages.
Read messages from one chat, newest last. Page further back with before (a unix timestamp or ISO date).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chat | Yes | Contact name, group name, phone number, or jid | |
| limit | No | ||
| before | No | Only messages older than this ISO date or unix timestamp |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates read-only intent, ordering, and pagination behavior, but does not disclose whether reading marks messages as read, what the response shape is, or potential side effects. This is a meaningful gap for a no-annotation tool.
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 short sentences with no filler. The core action and ordering are front-loaded, and the pagination guidance is compact and actionable. Every sentence earns its place.
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 tool has a simple interface, but because there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain more about the return value and limits. The current description is adequate for basic selection but leaves uncertainty about message format, default/limit behavior, and any read side effects.
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 67%; the description adds useful paging context for `before`, but offers no extra semantics for `chat` or `limit`. Since `limit` lacks a schema description, the description could have compensated but does not.
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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('messages'), and narrows scope to 'one chat' with ordering 'newest last'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like search_messages, send_message, and list_chats.
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 conveys clear usage context: retrieve messages from a single chat in chronological order, and page further back using the `before` parameter. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.