Send a document from a URL, local path, or base64 data to a WhatsApp chat with an optional caption.
Send a document from a URL, local path, or base64 data, with optional caption.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| path | No | ||
| caption | No | ||
| chat_id | Yes | ||
| session | Yes | ||
| filename | No | ||
| mimetype | No | ||
| data_base64 | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It implies a send/mutation operation but does not mention permission requirements, delivery behavior, source precedence if multiple file inputs are supplied, or other operational constraints.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action and supported source types.
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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the definition is under-specified. It should explain required session/chat_id context and clarify how filename, mimetype, and multiple source inputs are handled.
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%, and the description only documents the source-related parameters (url, path, data_base64) and caption. It leaves the required session and chat_id parameters and the filename and mimetype parameters unexplained.
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 states a specific verb and resource: "Send a document" from one of three source types, with an optional caption. It is clear enough to distinguish from text/image sending, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate the sibling tools.
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 explains the available source types but gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings like waha_send_image or waha_send_text. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or decision rules for choosing URL, path, or base64 input.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.