Zappaz MCP Server

send_audio_message

Send an audio message through the Zappaz WhatsApp API to a contact or group, with optional delay, quoted message, and mentions.

Instructions

Envia uma mensagem de áudio atraves da Zappaz API

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": {
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "send_audio_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the action itself. It does not state whether 'source' is fetched server-side, whether sending is idempotent, what happens on failure, or any rate-limit/auth requirements for this mutating send operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler is structurally clean, but for a tool with a nested five-property payload it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. Brevity here reflects missing information, not discipline.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no annotations, no output schema, and a nested object parameter, the description should at minimum cover audio source formats, delivery semantics, and return behavior. It covers none of these, leaving the agent with only the tool name and schema to work from.

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 reported at 0% for the top-level parameter, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all — it does not mention number, source, delay, quoted, or mentions. The nested property descriptions in the schema do some work, but the tool description contributes nothing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Envia uma mensagem de áudio') via the named Zappaz API, so an agent immediately knows this sends audio. It is naturally distinguishable from siblings like send_text_message or send_video_message by the resource, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over send_text_message/send_image_message/etc., nor any prerequisites such as required permissions, channel availability, or supported audio formats. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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