Provides tools to manage WhatsApp sessions (start, stop, check status, get QR/pairing code) and send text and media messages through the ChatKazi API.
Click on "Deploy Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@chatkazi-mcp send a text message to 254712345678 saying Hello from the AI"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
An implementation of the Model Context Protocol (MCP) designed to act as a bridge between an MCP-compliant client and the ChatKazi WhatsApp API gateway.
This server exposes a series of tools that enable an AI model to interact with WhatsApp instances, programmatically managing sessions, monitoring connection states, and dispatching text and media messages.
This server functions as a local translation layer running over Standard Input/Output (Stdio) transport:
[ MCP Client / Host ] <--- Stdio (JSON-RPC) ---> [ chatkazi-mcp Server ] <--- HTTPS (fetch) ---> [ ChatKazi API ]Client / Host Handshake: The host launches this server as a subprocess. The server registers its capabilities and schemas.
Dynamic Tool Execution: When the AI model decides to call a tool, the host routes a JSON-RPC request over Stdio.
API Forwarding: The server translates the arguments, formats the HTTPS headers, executes the fetch call to ChatKazi, parses the result, and returns a clean text context block to the model.
Related MCP server: WAHA MCP
The server relies on the host environment to supply authentication variables. These must be defined when spawning the process:
CHATKAZI_API_KEY (Required): Your live API key retrieved from your ChatKazi dashboard.
CHATKAZI_BASE_URL (Optional): The base URL of the API. Defaults to https://api.chatkazi.app/api/v1 if omitted.
The AI model can track and manage the lifecycle of connected WhatsApp numbers. Under the hood, sessions transition through the following states, which are returned by the session status tools:
State | Meaning | Required Action |
| The session has been created but not initialized. | Call |
| ChatKazi is preparing the connection. | Wait and poll status |
| A QR code pairing link is active. | Retrieve QR and scan in WhatsApp |
| A text pairing code has been generated. | Retrieve code |
| The session is online and ready. | Proceed to send messages |
| The connection dropped or failed. | Re-authenticate or restart session |
| The session was explicitly terminated. | Run |
The following tools are dynamically exposed to the AI model:
list_sessionsDescription: Retrieve a list of all WhatsApp session instances owned by the ChatKazi account.
Parameters: None.
start_sessionDescription: Prepares and starts a session instance.
Parameters:
sessionId (string, optional): A unique identifier. Defaults to "default".
get_session_statusDescription: Queries the current state of a session.
Parameters:
sessionId (string, required): The target session identifier.
get_session_qrDescription: Retrieves the QR code link to link a device.
Parameters:
sessionId (string, required): The target session identifier.
logout_sessionDescription: Logs out and disconnects a session, clearing all state.
Parameters:
sessionId (string, required): The target session identifier.
send_whatsapp_textDescription: Dispatches a plain text WhatsApp message.
Parameters:
to (string, required): Recipient number in international format without spaces or + (e.g., "254712345678").
text (string, required): The text content of your message.
sessionId (string, optional): The session identifier to send from. Defaults to "default".
send_whatsapp_mediaDescription: Dispatches an image, video, audio, or document file.
Parameters:
to (string, required): Recipient number in international format without spaces or +.
url (string, required): Publicly reachable URL of the direct file asset (e.g., a direct link ending in .png or .jpg).
type (string, optional): One of image, video, audio, or document. Defaults to image.
caption (string, optional): Optional caption text.
fileName (string, optional): Display name for document attachments.
mimetype (string, optional): Explicit MIME type.
sessionId (string, optional): The session identifier to send from. Defaults to "default".
When the ChatKazi API returns an error, the server intercepts the HTTP status and surfaces semantic guidance to the AI model rather than throwing unhandled exceptions. This allows the model to alter its behavior and advise the user:
HTTP 401 (Unauthorized): Surfaced as a credential configuration error, advising the user to check their CHATKAZI_API_KEY.
HTTP 402 (Payment Required / Limit Reached): Surfaced as a plan limitation error (e.g., "WhatsApp instance limit reached"), informing the model to stop trying to create instances or sending messages and advise the user to upgrade their plan.
HTTP 409 (Conflict): Surfaced when trying to start an active or conflicted session.
Empty Media Payload: Intercepts files that fail to download (e.g., file sizes of 0 bytes) and warns the model that the URL is likely invalid or blocked.
To integrate this server into an MCP client or host platform, add the server to your host's configuration settings:
{
"mcpServers": {
"chatkazi-mcp": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"@lxmwaniky/chatkazi-mcp"
],
"env": {
"CHATKAZI_API_KEY": "your_chatkazi_api_key_here",
"CHATKAZI_BASE_URL": "https://api.chatkazi.app/api/v1"
}
}
}
}Find instructions below to connect this MCP server to your favorite developer tool.
Add the configuration to your claude_desktop_config.json:
File Path (macOS): ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
File Path (Windows): %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json
{
"mcpServers": {
"chatkazi-mcp": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"@lxmwaniky/chatkazi-mcp"
],
"env": {
"CHATKAZI_API_KEY": "YOUR_CHATKAZI_API_KEY_HERE"
}
}
}
}Dynamically register this server with the Claude CLI:
claude mcp add chatkazi-mcp npx -y @lxmwaniky/chatkazi-mcp --env CHATKAZI_API_KEY="YOUR_CHATKAZI_API_KEY_HERE"Connect this server visually in your editor settings:
Open Cursor Settings > Features > MCP.
Click + Add New MCP Server.
Configure the following fields:
Name: chatkazi-mcp
Type: command
Command: npx -y @lxmwaniky/chatkazi-mcp
Click + Add Env to configure your CHATKAZI_API_KEY.
Add this to your Codeium MCP server configuration file:
File Path: ~/.codeium/windsurf/mcp_config.json
{
"mcpServers": {
"chatkazi-mcp": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"@lxmwaniky/chatkazi-mcp"
],
"env": {
"CHATKAZI_API_KEY": "YOUR_CHATKAZI_API_KEY_HERE"
}
}
}
}Configure this server directly inside your central configuration:
"chatkazi-mcp": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"@lxmwaniky/chatkazi-mcp"
],
"env": {
"CHATKAZI_API_KEY": "YOUR_CHATKAZI_API_KEY_HERE"
}
}To compile and verify this project locally:
Node.js (v18 or higher is recommended)
pnpm (preferred package manager)
Install dependencies: Installs node modules and setup definitions:
pnpm installCompile TypeScript code:
Compiles the TypeScript source files from the src/ directory into JavaScript inside the build/ directory:
pnpm run buildGrant executable permissions to the output binary: Makes the built JS file directly executable since it starts with a Node shebang:
chmod +x build/index.jsVerify using the MCP Inspector: Inspect tools dynamically and test real-time payloads:
CHATKAZI_API_KEY="your_api_key" pnpm dlx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector node build/index.jsUsing third-party, unofficial WhatsApp gateway interfaces carries an inherent risk of account suspension by WhatsApp. WhatsApp strictly prohibits bulk messaging, automated spamming, and unsolicited outreach. You are solely responsible for ensuring your messaging workflows comply with WhatsApp's official Terms of Service. The developers and contributors of this MCP server are not liable for any suspended, blocked, or permanently banned WhatsApp numbers resulting from the use of this software.
This project is an independent, community-driven open-source integration. It is not officially affiliated with, endorsed by, sponsored by, or associated with ChatKazi, Meta Platforms, Inc., or WhatsApp. All product names, trademarks, and registered trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
While this MCP server software is distributed for free under an open-source license, utilizing the ChatKazi API may incur financial costs depending on your ChatKazi subscription tier. You are entirely responsible for monitoring your own platform usage, API call quotas, billing, and any rate limits associated with your ChatKazi account.
This software is provided "as is," without warranty of any kind, express or implied. The underlying ChatKazi API endpoints, request/response formats, or authentication methods may change over time without notice, which could temporarily or permanently impact the functionality of this server.
This project is licensed under the ISC License.
Retrieve the QR code pairing link for an initialized session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sessionId | Yes | The identifier of the session. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'initialized session' as a prerequisite but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what errors may occur, or what the returned pairing link looks like.
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?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource clearly.
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?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. While the description is minimally sufficient, it omits details about the return format (e.g., URL string vs. image) and any additional prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.
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 100% (sessionId described as 'identifier of the session'). The description adds no new parameter details beyond the schema, but the schema already provides sufficient clarity, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Retrieve' and the specific resource 'QR code pairing link' for a session. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_session_status (status) and start_session (initiation).
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?
The phrase 'for an initialized session' implies this tool is used after session initialization, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the sibling list makes the distinction obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Check the current state of a specific WhatsApp session (e.g., connected, qr_ready).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sessionId | Yes | The identifier of the session to check. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation with examples of possible states, but it does not describe the exact return format, error behavior (e.g., session not found), or whether any side effects occur. It adds some value with the state examples but lacks deeper transparency.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and provides useful examples without any fluff or redundancy.
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?
With only one parameter and no output schema, the description should compensate by explaining the return format more explicitly. While it gives examples of states, it does not list all possible values or error cases, making it only partially complete.
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?
The schema provides full coverage for the single parameter sessionId, including a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific information, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: checking the current state of a specific WhatsApp session. The verb 'Check' and resource 'current state' are specific, and the examples (connected, qr_ready) distinguish it from sibling tools that list, start, or manage sessions.
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?
The implied usage is to check the status of a single session, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this versus list_sessions, get_session_qr, or other alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, so the guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all WhatsApp sessions connected to the ChatKazi account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies the scope by specifying 'connected to the ChatKazi account', which adds context. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, the structure of the returned data, potential pagination, or any side effects. For a list operation, these details are useful but not fully essential, so some transparency is present but incomplete.
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?
The description is a single sentence that states the tool's purpose and scope with no redundant wording. It is efficiently structured and immediately communicates the essential action, earning a perfect score for conciseness.
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?
The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema, so the description is the sole source of expectations about the result. While 'list all sessions' conveys the core functionality, it does not specify what information is included for each session (e.g., session ID, status, creation time) or how to handle the output. Given the availability of sibling tools like get_session_status, some clarification about the relationship would improve completeness, but the description is minimally viable for this simple operation.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies that no parameters are needed. It adds no additional parameter semantics because there are none to describe, which is appropriate given the schema coverage is 100%.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: listing all WhatsApp sessions connected to the ChatKazi account. It uses a specific verb ('list') and a distinct resource (sessions), and it is unambiguously different from sibling tools like start_session, get_session_status, or send_whatsapp_text, which focus on creating, monitoring, or using sessions rather than enumerating them.
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?
The description implies the tool is for enumerating sessions, which is a natural fit when an agent needs an overview of active sessions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as get_session_status (which likely targets a specific session) or start_session (which initiates a new session). No exclusions or alternative references are provided, so guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Disconnect and log out a WhatsApp session, clearing its authentication state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sessionId | Yes | The identifier of the session to log out. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool clears authentication state, which is a mutation, but does not mention side effects such as token invalidation, irreversibility, or impact on other sessions. It's adequate but not rich.
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?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and contains no filler. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a one-parameter logout tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and effect. It lacks details about preconditions (e.g., session must exist) or error behavior, but given the simple nature, it is largely complete.
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?
The schema already describes sessionId as 'The identifier of the session to log out.' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, such as format or constraints, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
The description 'Disconnect and log out a WhatsApp session, clearing its authentication state' uses a specific verb (log out) with a specific resource (WhatsApp session) and states the effect (clearing authentication state). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_session_status or start_session.
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?
The description implies usage: use when you want to end a session. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions versus alternatives like get_session_status or list_sessions. It's clear but implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Send a media message (image, video, audio, or document) to a recipient.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | Recipient phone number in international format without spaces or '+' (e.g., '254712345678'). | |
| url | Yes | Publicly accessible URL of the media file to send. | |
| type | No | Type of media being sent: 'image', 'video', 'audio', or 'document'. Defaults to 'image'. | |
| caption | No | Optional text caption for image, video, or document messages. | |
| fileName | No | Optional display name for document messages. | |
| mimetype | No | Optional recommended MIME type for the media file. | |
| sessionId | No | Optional WhatsApp session identifier to send from. Defaults to 'default'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention prerequisites like an active session, the requirement that the URL be publicly accessible, or potential failure modes. The operation 'send' implies side effects, but the description gives no further insight into execution context or consequences.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It names the tool's action and object, plus the media types, without wasting words or including extraneous detail.
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?
Despite a rich input schema, the description omits critical operational context: it does not mention that a WhatsApp session must exist, that the URL must be publicly accessible, or what the tool returns. There is no output schema, so the agent has no idea about success/failure indicators. For a tool with several optional parameters and no annotations, the description is insufficient.
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?
All parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no parameter-level information beyond the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description does not clarify any additional semantics like how the media type affects the URL handling.
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?
The description clearly states the action (send) and resource (media message), and lists the supported media types (image, video, audio, or document), which distinguishes it from the sibling send_whatsapp_text. It is specific and unambiguous.
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?
The description clearly implies this tool is for sending media, as opposed to text messages, and lists the media types. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or point to send_whatsapp_text as the alternative, so it stops short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Send a plain text WhatsApp message to a recipient.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | Recipient phone number in international format without spaces or '+' (e.g., '254712345678'). | |
| text | Yes | The message body text. | |
| sessionId | No | Optional WhatsApp session identifier to send from. Defaults to 'default'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action without noting requirements like session existence, message delivery semantics, or error conditions. This lack of transparency is a significant gap.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action. There is no redundant or extraneous wording.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity and complete schema coverage, the description is minimally sufficient for an agent to invoke it. However, the absence of any behavioral or usage context, such as the optional sessionId handling or what happens on failure, means it is not fully complete for a production scenario.
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?
The input schema already covers all three parameters with descriptions, and the tool description does not add any param-specific meaning beyond the schema. Per the rubric, full schema coverage sets a baseline of 3, which is where this sits.
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?
The description uses the specific verb 'send' and identifies the resource as a 'plain text WhatsApp message', clearly distinguishing from sibling send_whatsapp_media. It states the recipient as the target, making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
The phrase 'plain text' implies text-only messages and implicitly contrasts with the sibling send_whatsapp_media, providing context on scope. However, it does not explicitly state when to use session-related tools or mention exclusions, so it falls short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Initialize a new WhatsApp session connection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sessionId | No | Optional custom identifier for the session. Defaults to 'default'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It fails to mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a QR code is needed), idempotency, or what happens if a session with the same ID already exists. This is a minimal statement without behavioral depth.
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?
The description is a single sentence that is direct and contains no filler. It is appropriately sized for a tool with one well-documented parameter.
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?
The tool has no annotations and no output schema, and the description does not explain the expected outcome of starting a session or how it fits into the session lifecycle (e.g., needing to get a QR code). This leaves the agent with insufficient context to fully understand the operation.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the sessionId parameter fully documented including its default value. The description adds no information about parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description uses the specific verb 'Initialize' and clearly identifies the resource as a WhatsApp session connection. The word 'new' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_session_status, get_session_qr, and logout_session, which operate on existing sessions.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use start_session versus alternatives like get_session_status or logout_session. The description only states what the tool does without any context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.3get_session_qrget_session_statuslist_sessionslogout_sessionsend_whatsapp_mediasend_whatsapp_textstart_sessionScored across 7 tools
Each tool targets a distinct action: session management (list, start, status, QR, logout) versus messaging (text, media). No two tools have overlapping purposes, and the descriptors clearly differentiate them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., list_sessions, start_session, send_whatsapp_text). The pattern is uniform and predictable across the set.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a WhatsApp MCP server covering session lifecycle and message sending. Each tool serves a necessary function without redundancy or bloat.
The tool set covers the full session lifecycle (initiate, check status, retrieve QR, log out, list) and both primary message types (text and media). No obvious gaps for the stated domain.
Drive WhatsApp from any MCP client: pair devices, send text and media, manage contacts and groups.
WhatsApp (Web + Business API), SMS, contacts, and call records via 2Chat's MCP server.
Talk to your public-facing AI from any MCP client — Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor, Cline, Windsurf.
Connect MCP clients to 2,000+ AI models without managing provider API keys.
