Send a geographic location to a WhatsApp chat using latitude and longitude, with optional name and address details.
Envoie une position (latitude, longitude), avec un nom et une adresse facultatifs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chat | Yes | ||
| name | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| address | No | ||
| latitude | Yes | ||
| longitude | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| at | Yes | ||
| chat_jid | Yes | ||
| message_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — no mention of delivery, destination resolution, rate limits, or what a non-idempotent send implies on retry.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is also the source of the missing guidance rather than an intentional tight scope.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the tool itself is simple. However, with 6 parameters at 0% schema coverage, the omission of the required 'chat' destination and the 'account' scope leaves the agent under-informed for invocation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names latitude/longitude and flags name/address as optional, but the required 'chat' target and the 'account' parameter are never explained, and no format or default semantics are given for any parameter.
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?
States a specific verb (Envoie) and resource (a position with latitude/longitude plus optional name/address), which cleanly separates it from the send_message / send_media / send_poll siblings without naming them. It does not explicitly reference any sibling, but the resource is distinctive enough to route an agent correctly.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent infers you call this instead of send_message when you want to share coordinates. There is no statement of prerequisites (which chat/account context is needed), no when-not guidance, and no explicit alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.