whatsapp-mcp

by edouard-claude

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Rust

Local

get_message_context

Read-only

Retrieve a WhatsApp message plus nearby messages by chat and message ID to restore conversation context after a search.

Instructions

Un message et ceux qui l'entourent dans sa discussion, par exemple après une recherche.

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": {
      "chat": "<chat>",
      "message_id": "<message_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_message_context"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`chat`	Yes
`around`	No	Messages de part et d'autre, 1 à 50, défaut 5.
`account`	No
`message_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chat_jid`	Yes
`messages`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing behavioral — no mention of the default context window (5), the allowed range, or what happens at discussion boundaries.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the core concept (message + surroundings) is front-loaded. It is efficient, though notably under-specified rather than tight.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a four-parameter read tool with 25% schema coverage, the description leaves account/chat semantics and sibling differentiation unexplained.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 25%: just "around" is documented. The description doesn't clarify chat, account, or message_id semantics, so for three of four parameters an agent gets no meaning beyond the raw names.

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 conveys a specific resource — a message plus its surrounding messages in a discussion — which is distinct from list_messages or get_chat. It lacks an explicit verb and doesn't name a sibling it should not be confused with, but the scope is decipherable.

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?

"par exemple après une recherche" gives one implied context (following a search), which suggests usage but names no alternative tool or exclusion. There is no guidance on when not to use it versus list_messages or search_messages.

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