whatsapp-mcp

by edouard-claude

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Rust

Local

send_poll

Create and send a WhatsApp poll in a chat with 2–12 choices, supporting single or multiple answers per person.

Instructions

Crée un sondage (2 à 12 choix, un seul ou plusieurs par personne).

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>",
      "question": "<question>",
      "options": "<options>"
    },
    "name": "send_poll"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`chat`	Yes
`account`	No
`options`	Yes	2 à 12 choix.
`multiple`	No	Plusieurs choix possibles par personne (non par défaut).
`question`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`at`	Yes
`chat_jid`	Yes
`message_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful constraints ('2 à 12 choix', single vs multiple per person) but says nothing about permissions, visibility, or what state the poll mutates.

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 tightly-packed sentence with zero filler, and the core constraints are front-loaded inside the parenthetical. Efficient, though it omits contextual information that would still earn its place.

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 no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. Yet for a 5-parameter mutation tool, the description omits required-parameter context (chat, question) and any usage conditions.

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 coverage is only 40%: the description usefully documents the options count limit and the multiple-choice semantics, mapping to two of five parameters. However, 'chat', 'account', and 'question' remain unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb+resource in French ('Crée un sondage'), making it immediately distinguishable from the many send_message/send_media siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling or scope, but the poll resource is unique in the toolset.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention that a target chat is required before creating the poll. The agent must infer all invocation context from the schema.

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