mcp-whatsapp

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

Annotations indicate this is destructive (destructiveHint: true), non-idempotent (idempotentHint: false), and open-world (openWorldHint: true), but the description adds valuable context by specifying that it reports on the WhatsApp bridge's connectivity and pairing identity. This clarifies the scope of 'destructive' behavior (likely involving state checks or network calls) beyond what annotations alone provide, though it doesn't detail side effects like rate limits or auth needs.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Report whether the WhatsApp bridge... is connected') and adds necessary detail ('and who we're paired as'). Every word contributes meaning without waste, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters) and lack of an output schema, the description is minimally complete but leaves gaps. It explains what the tool does but not the format of the returned status (e.g., boolean for connected, string for pairing), which could be inferred but isn't explicit. Annotations provide some behavioral context, but more detail on side effects would enhance completeness.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without redundant parameter details, earning a baseline score above 3 for efficient compensation.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Report') and resource ('WhatsApp bridge inside this MCP server'), specifying what information is returned ('whether connected, and who we're paired as'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_chat' or 'get_privacy_settings' by focusing on bridge connectivity status rather than chat data or settings.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the bridge must be initialized), exclusions, or related tools for similar purposes (e.g., checking connection status via other means). Usage is implied only by the purpose statement.

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