WhatsApp Business MCP Server

send_location_message

Share location coordinates with WhatsApp contacts by sending a map pin containing latitude, longitude, optional name, and address information.

Instructions

Send a location pin to a WhatsApp number.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "to": "<to>",
      "latitude": "<latitude>",
      "longitude": "<longitude>"
    },
    "name": "send_location_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	Yes	Recipient phone number
`latitude`	Yes	Location latitude
`longitude`	Yes	Location longitude
`name`	No	Location name
`address`	No	Location address

Implementation Reference

src/whatsapp-client.ts:179-189 (handler)

The actual implementation of sending a location message via the WhatsApp API.

async sendLocationMessage(
  to: string,
  location: { latitude: number; longitude: number; name?: string; address?: string }
) {
  return this.request(`/${this.config.phoneNumberId}/messages`, "POST", {
    messaging_product: "whatsapp",
    to,
    type: "location",
    location,
  });
}

src/index.ts:233-247 (registration)

MCP tool registration for 'send_location_message' which validates input and calls the WhatsApp client.

server.tool(
  "send_location_message",
  "Send a location pin to a WhatsApp number.",
  {
    to: z.string().describe("Recipient phone number"),
    latitude: z.number().describe("Location latitude"),
    longitude: z.number().describe("Location longitude"),
    name: z.string().optional().describe("Location name"),
    address: z.string().optional().describe("Location address"),
  },
  async ({ to, latitude, longitude, name, address }) =>
    executeWithHooks("send_location_message", { to, latitude, longitude }, config, () =>
      wa.sendLocationMessage(to, { latitude, longitude, name, address })
    )
);

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Mar 22, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Send') but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, whether it's asynchronous, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., message ID returned). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse. There is no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error cases), output expectations, and usage context. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (e.g., 'Recipient phone number', 'Location latitude'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema, such as format requirements for 'to' (e.g., E.164) or that 'name' and 'address' are optional metadata. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 ('Send a location pin') and target ('to a WhatsApp number'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like send_text_message or send_media_message by focusing on location sharing. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the resource (e.g., 'via WhatsApp Business API') or differentiate from send_contact_message in terms of content type beyond the name.

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., needing a verified business account), exclusions (e.g., not for group chats), or comparisons to siblings like send_text_message for non-location messages. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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

Deploy Server