Zappaz MCP Server

send_document_message

Send a document through the Zappaz WhatsApp API to a phone number or group, with optional caption, filename, delay, and quoted-message reply.

Instructions

Envia uma mensagem de documento 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_document_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 disclosure burden and it fails to meet it. It says nothing about authentication, rate limits, whether the message is queued or sent immediately, what the delay/quoted options do in practice, or what the call returns. The only behavioral claim, 'atraves da Zappaz API', is tautological.

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 no filler, so nothing is wasted. But it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely economical, containing only a verb and a resource.

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?

For a write tool with a nested 7-property payload, no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It leaves the agent to infer the payload shape, sending semantics and result behavior from the schema alone.

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?

The description adds zero parameter meaning; all substance lives in the nested object schema, whose seven properties (source, caption, fileName, mentions, quoted, delay, number) are individually documented. The top-level 'data' wrapper is undocumented anywhere, and with coverage reported at 0% the description was expected to compensate, which it does not.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Envia uma mensagem de documento'), which clearly separates it from siblings like send_text_message, send_image_message and send_audio_message. However, it never states what a 'document' payload is or how it differs from the other media senders beyond the noun, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit. The Portuguese text against English sibling names is a minor clarity cost.

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 pick this tool over send_image_message or send_video_message, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The only usage signal is the word 'documento' in the tool name itself. Nothing tells the agent when this is the wrong choice.

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