askmywa

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Send a voice note

send_audio_message

Destructive

Send an audio file as a WhatsApp voice note with a preview first; confirm only after user approval, converting to Opus when needed.

Instructions

Send an audio file as a WhatsApp voice note (converted to Opus with ffmpeg when needed; if ffmpeg is missing use send_file instead). The file must be under the daemon's send root directory.

Safety: with confirm=false (the default) NOTHING is sent; the tool returns a preview. Show it to the user and call again with confirm=true only after they approved. Never set confirm=true on the first call.

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": {
      "recipient": "<recipient>",
      "media_path": "<media_path>"
    },
    "name": "send_audio_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`confirm`	No	false (default) only previews; true sends, after the user approved the preview
`recipient`	Yes	phone number with country code (no +), a JID or a contact name
`media_path`	Yes	absolute path of the audio file, under the send root directory

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sent`	Yes	true only when the message left the account
`message`	Yes	human-readable status
`preview`	No
`timestamp`	No	server timestamp of the sent message
`message_id`	No
`needs_confirmation`	Yes	true when this was a preview: repeat the call with confirm=true after the user approved

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description supplies the context the annotations cannot: the Opus/ffmpeg conversion pipeline, the send-root path restriction, and the two-phase preview/confirm protocol that prevents an accidental irreversible send. This is real operational behavior beyond the structured hints, and it is consistent with destructiveHint=true.

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?

Purpose and sibling fallback are front-loaded in sentence one, the safety protocol is isolated in its own labeled paragraph, and every sentence carries decision-relevant information. The parenthetical about ffmpeg is dense but each clause earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a destructive, open-world send operation with three parameters, the definition covers the conversion behavior, the path precondition, the mandatory approval loop, and the failure fallback. An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and no decision-relevant gap remains.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds workflow meaning to confirm ('NOTHING is sent; the tool returns a preview' followed by the approval loop) rather than just restating 'false only previews'. It also reinforces the media_path constraint already in the schema but adds no new syntax or format detail for recipient.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Send an audio file as a WhatsApp voice note') and immediately distinguishes this tool from its closest sibling by naming the ffmpeg fallback to send_file. An agent can tell it apart from send_file and send_message without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it ('if ffmpeg is missing use send_file instead'), plus a mandatory when-to-use rule for confirm (preview first, resend only after user approval). It even adds an exclusion ('Never set confirm=true on the first call'), leaving nothing to inference.

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

Deploy Server