Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-whatsapp

mcp-whatsapp

by Sealjay
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Local

pairing_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Reports WhatsApp device-pairing state as a structured setup_state envelope, letting supervisors surface the linking QR, detect connection readiness, or handle expired pairing sessions.

Instructions

Report the WhatsApp device-pairing state as a structured setup_state envelope for programmatic supervisors that surface the linking QR to their own clients (e.g. a polling daemon). Read-only; no side effects. Returns a JSON object {type:"setup_state", state, …} where state is ready (paired and connected; adds own_jid/own_phone), awaiting_qr (unpaired; adds qr_payload when a pairing code is cached, or expired=true when the last pairing session expired and a new one starts once /pair is opened or a pairing code is requested), or error (pairing cache unavailable).

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": "pairing_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.4.1

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description specifies the return contract: a JSON envelope with state values ready, awaiting_qr, and error, plus the extra fields each carries (own_jid/own_phone, qr_payload, expired=true) and the causal rule that a new pairing session starts when /pair is opened. The 'no side effects' sentence merely echoes annotations, but the rest adds substantial behavioral context.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Purpose is front-loaded and every clause carries information, but the state enumeration is packed into one long sentence with nested parentheticals, which slightly hurts scannability. Breaking the three states into separate clauses or a short list would read faster.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return contract, and it does so completely: envelope shape, all three states, extra fields per state, and the expiry/new-session behavior. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed and puts all detail into what the call yields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: report the WhatsApp device-pairing state. It also names the exact audience and framing (setup_state envelope for programmatic supervisors surfacing the linking QR), which clearly separates it from message/chat-oriented siblings such as get_status or request_sync.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a concrete usage context (a polling daemon surfacing the QR to its own clients) and explains that awaiting_qr resolves once /pair is opened or a pairing code is requested. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming an alternative tool.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools