mcp-wacli

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

show_chat

Retrieve detailed information about a specific WhatsApp chat or group conversation by providing its unique JID identifier.

Instructions

Show details of a single chat.

Args:
    jid: Chat JID (e.g. '573001234567@s.whatsapp.net' or '...@g.us' for groups)

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": {
      "jid": "<jid>"
    },
    "name": "show_chat"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`jid`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Mar 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool shows details but does not specify what details are included, whether it requires authentication, if it's read-only, or any error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that presumably fetches data.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise parameter explanation. It uses minimal words effectively, with no redundant information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details like return format or error handling, which are important for a data-fetching tool in this context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With only one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the 'jid' parameter with examples (e.g., '573001234567@s.whatsapp.net' or '...@g.us' for groups). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could specify format constraints more explicitly.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Show details of a single chat.' It specifies the verb ('show') and resource ('chat'), but does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'show_contact' or 'show_message' beyond the resource type, which is why it doesn't get a 5.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'list_chats' for browsing or 'show_contact' for contact details, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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