Retrieve recent WhatsApp notification previews from the phone, optionally filter by sender, and review incoming messages without opening chat history.
Recent WhatsApp notification previews from the phone. Optional sender name filter (e.g. Mom). This is the notification shade, not full chat history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| sender | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the key limitation that results are notification-shade previews rather than complete message content. It does not state that this is a read-only, side-effect-free operation, nor anything about how many results are returned by default or what happens to older notifications.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the what, followed by the filter and then the critical scope caveat. Nothing is redundant and each clause carries information.
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 shape needn't be explained, and the most important caveat (previews, not history) is stated. The only real gap is the undocumented limit parameter for a tool that plausibly returns a bounded list.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate: it explains 'sender' as an optional name filter with a concrete example (Mom), which is a genuine addition. The 'limit' parameter — its default of 10 and what it caps — is left entirely undocumented.
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 names the resource (WhatsApp notification previews) and the source (the phone), so an agent knows this retrieves notification data rather than messages or tasks. No sibling overlaps with this domain, so no differentiation is needed, but it stops short of a crisp verb+scope statement like 'list recent WhatsApp notifications'.
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?
'This is the notification shade, not full chat history' implicitly bounds when the tool is appropriate, and the sender filter example implies narrowing use. But there's no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over other retrieval tools, or any stated prerequisites for reading phone notifications.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.