Send an image to a WhatsApp chat from a URL, local path, or base64 data, with an optional caption. Specify the session and chat ID to deliver media directly.
Send an image 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 exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and it discloses very little: it doesn't say whether url must be publicly reachable, whether path is server-local, whether the source parameters are mutually exclusive, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.
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?
It is a single tight, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is good. But its brevity comes at the cost of omitting information the agent actually needs, so the concision is partly under-specification.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but with 8 undocumented input parameters and no annotations the description leaves the agent guessing about session targeting, source exclusivity, and the filename/mimetype overrides.
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% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and it largely doesn't: it implies url/path/base64 are alternative sources but never says they are mutually exclusive or which to prefer, and it is entirely silent on session, chat_id, filename, and mimetype.
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 an image') and enumerates the three accepted image sources plus the optional caption, which is clear. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling waha_send_file, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which one to pick for a picture.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus waha_send_file, no statement of the obvious precondition that the session must be started, and no indication of what to do when both url and path are supplied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.