whatsapp-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

handle_join_requests

Idempotent

Approve or reject WhatsApp group join requests by specifying the group chat, a boolean decision, and participant JIDs or phone numbers.

Instructions

Accepte ou refuse des demandes d'adhésion à un groupe.

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>",
      "approve": "<approve>",
      "participants": "<participants>"
    },
    "name": "handle_join_requests"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`chat`	Yes
`account`	No
`approve`	Yes
`participants`	Yes	Demandeurs : JID ou numéro (voir `list_join_requests`).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`results`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotent=true, destructive=false and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the operation is a binary accept/refuse decision, but does not disclose batch semantics, permission requirements, or what happens to requests already handled.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, so nothing wastes space. It is arguably too terse for the tool's complexity, but the structure itself is efficient.

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, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with only 25% schema coverage and 4 parameters, the description leaves usage flow and required inputs ('chat' + 'approve') unaddressed, so it is only marginally complete.

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 description coverage is only 25% – just 'participants'. The description mentions no parameters at all, leaving 'chat', 'account' and the 'approve' boolean entirely undocumented outside their types. The accept/refuse wording hints at 'approve' but never names or maps it.

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 names a specific verb pair (accept/refuse) and resource (group join requests), so the agent knows exactly what action is performed. It does not, however, distinguish this from siblings like list_join_requests or request_history within the description text itself.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the paired read tool list_join_requests, and no stated preconditions (e.g. that requests must first be listed). The agent must infer the workflow entirely.

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