Check if WhatsApp session is connected to ensure it remains active and identify connectivity problems.
Check if the WhatsApp session is connected.
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": "get_session_health"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool checks connectivity but does not describe return values, error behavior, or confirm it's read-only with no side effects. For a health check, this minimal disclosure leaves behavioral aspects unclear.
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 sentence, extremely concise, with the key action and resource front-loaded. There is zero wasted wording, 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?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete. However, it could be more explicit about the result format (e.g., 'returns true if connected'), which would enhance completeness given the absence of annotations and an output schema.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already covers everything with 100% coverage. Per guidelines, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, and the description adds nothing about parameters since none exist.
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 uses a specific verb 'Check' and clearly identifies the resource 'WhatsApp session' with its health status. It distinguishes from sibling tools like send_local_file and list_endpoints, which are about file sending and endpoint listing, none of which concern session connectivity.
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 implies usage for verifying session connectivity but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It offers no exclusions or references to other tools, leaving the timing to the agent's inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.