Zappaz MCP Server

send_image_message

Sends an image via Zappaz WhatsApp API to a sender number or group, with optional caption, delay, mentions, and quoted reply.

Instructions

Envia uma mensagem de imagem 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_image_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

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, and it discloses almost nothing: no authentication/API-key requirement, no rate limits, no delivery/confirmation behavior, no statement about what happens on failure. For a message-sending (mutating) operation this is a substantial gap; it only conveys that sending occurs through the Zappaz API.

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?

It is a single short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication. Adequate in size, thin in content.

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 send operation taking a nested object payload with seven fields, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete: it omits usage context, behavioral traits, and any return/error expectations. Only the nested schema keeps the definition minimally usable.

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?

The description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever. However, the nested schema itself documents each field (number, source, delay, quoted, caption, fileName, mentions) with clear Portuguese descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter semantics and a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Envia uma mensagem de imagem' = sends an image message) via the Zappaz API, so an agent knows exactly what operation this is. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the many send_*_message siblings (text, video, audio, document), though the 'imagem' resource implicitly separates it.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives among the sibling send_*_message tools, and no prerequisites or constraints. The agent must infer entirely from the name that this is the image-sending variant.

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