Zappaz MCP Server

update_group

Modify a specific Zappaz WhatsApp group's name, description, and admin-only posting or info-editing settings using its group ID.

Instructions

Atualiza as informações de um grupo específico na 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>",
      "groupId": "<groupId>"
    },
    "name": "update_group"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`groupId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

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. It only implies a mutation and says nothing about required permissions (e.g., onlyAdminsCanEditInfo), whether omitted fields are preserved, reversibility, or rate limits. It is barely more informative than the tool name.

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 short sentence is efficient and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. It lacks any of the details needed for correct invocation, so its brevity is not a strength here.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested parameter object, the description is insufficient. It omits field semantics, admin restrictions, and the meaning of empty-string sentinel values documented only in the schema.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It does not mention the required 'data' object, 'groupId', or any of the nested updatable fields. Although nested schema properties contain their own descriptions, the tool description itself adds no parameter guidance whatsoever.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the verb 'Atualiza' (Updates) and the resource 'grupo' (group), so the action is identifiable. However, 'informações' is vague about which fields can be changed, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like update_group_picture or create_group.

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 use this tool versus alternatives, what preconditions exist (e.g., admin permissions), or when not to use it. The agent must infer everything from the name and schema.

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