brasil-mcp-essentials

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

generate_whatsapp_qr

Generate a WhatsApp wa.me link and optional QR code (PNG, SVG, or both) for Brazilian phone numbers, with an optional URL-encoded message.

Instructions

Gera link wa.me (deeplink WhatsApp) + QR opcional pra telefone brasileiro. mensagem opcional (URL-encoded). qr_format: 'none' | 'png' | 'svg' | 'both'.

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": {
      "telefone": "<telefone>"
    },
    "name": "generate_whatsapp_qr"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`mensagem`	No
`telefone`	Yes
`qr_format`	No	none

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided; description lacks details on QR representation, output format, or restrictions (e.g., Brazilian phone number format). The message is mentioned as URL-encoded but not explained.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy, front-loaded with purpose. Highly concise and efficient.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Output schema exists, so description needn't detail returns; high-level overview of generated link and QR is provided. Could be more explicit about output fields.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning: telefone is Brazilian phone, mensagem is optional and URL-encoded, qr_format options. Falls short on specifying telefone format (e.g., country code).

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 description clearly states it generates a WhatsApp deeplink and optionally a QR code for Brazilian phone numbers, distinguishing it from sibling validation/lookup tools.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, though siblings are distinct (validations, lookups). Usage is implied but not elaborated.

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