WhatsApp MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_chats

Retrieve recent WhatsApp conversations to monitor ongoing chats and manage communications through the WhatsApp MCP Server.

Instructions

List recent chats from WhatsApp Web.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_chats"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Maximum number of chats to return.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Feb 21, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists chats but doesn't explain key behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, what data is returned (e.g., chat metadata, messages), how 'recent' is defined, or if there are rate limits. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and is front-loaded with the essential information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., chat objects, IDs, timestamps), nor does it cover behavioral aspects like error conditions or dependencies. For a tool with no structured metadata, more descriptive context is needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'limit' parameter clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('recent chats from WhatsApp Web'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'connect_whatsapp' or 'send_message', which serve completely different functions, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether WhatsApp Web must be connected first), nor does it specify what 'recent' means in terms of timeframe or ordering. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for optimal tool selection.

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

Deploy Server