get-whatsapp-messageRetrieve a single transactional WhatsApp message by UUID and return its delivery status. Use it to check whether a specific message was sent, delivered, or failed.
Get one transactional whatsapp message with its delivery status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The whatsapp message id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that the result includes delivery status, a small but useful value-add beyond the annotations. No return format, not-found behavior, or rate limits are disclosed.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word contributes to identifying the resource and the returned content.
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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and complete schema documentation, the description is nearly sufficient; it even notes the delivery-status payload. It is slightly thin on how the result differs from list-whatsapp-messages, but no output schema is needed for return details.
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 100%, with the single id parameter fully documented (UUID format and pattern). The description adds nothing about the id beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (transactional WhatsApp message) with singular scope, which contrasts reasonably with the sibling list-whatsapp-messages. It does not explicitly name or contrast the sibling that retrieves the same resource, so it stops short of a 5.
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 singular phrasing 'one ... message' implies it is used to fetch a single record, typically by id, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or comparison to list-whatsapp-messages or get-sms-message. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.