WAHA MCP Server

waha_archive_chat

Archive or unarchive WhatsApp chats to organize conversations and manage chat visibility within the WAHA MCP Server.

Instructions

Archive or unarchive a chat

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": {
      "chatId": "<chatId>"
    },
    "name": "waha_archive_chat"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chatId`	Yes	Chat ID
`archive`	No	true to archive, false to unarchive
`session`	No	Session name	default

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jan 28, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It states the action but doesn't explain what archiving means in this system, whether it's reversible, permission requirements, or what happens to archived chats. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is perfectly concise - a single sentence that communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently structured.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what archiving entails in this system, what the response looks like, or important behavioral aspects. The completeness is poor given the tool's complexity and lack of structured metadata.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the verb ('Archive or unarchive') and resource ('a chat'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'waha_delete_chat' or 'waha_mute_chat', which would require more specific scope information.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or how this differs from similar sibling tools like 'waha_delete_chat' or 'waha_mute_chat'.

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

Deploy Server