WhatsApp OSINT MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. 'Whatsapp user's status info' implies a read operation but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or cached data, or what format the information comes in. For a tool accessing user data with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate behavioral context.

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 at just three words, with no wasted language. However, this brevity comes at the cost of clarity - it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The structure is simple but lacks the front-loaded specificity that would make it more helpful to an agent.

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 tool that presumably retrieves sensitive user information (WhatsApp status), the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and a vague purpose statement, the agent lacks crucial context about what data is returned, privacy implications, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description fails to compensate for the missing structured information.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter, providing clear format requirements for the phone number. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.

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 'Whatsapp user's status info' is vague and tautological - it essentially restates the tool name 'status' with minimal elaboration. It doesn't specify what action the tool performs (retrieve? update? monitor?) or what 'status info' encompasses. While it mentions WhatsApp, it doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'privacy_settings' or 'business_insights' that might also relate to user information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparison with sibling tools like 'fetch_osint_info' or 'devices' that might also retrieve WhatsApp-related data. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and single parameter.

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