View every WhatsApp device on your account and its connection status. Use page and limit parameters to paginate results.
List every WhatsApp device on this account with its connection status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number, default 1 | |
| limit | No | Devices per page, default 10 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Input schema / properties / limitAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Devices per page, default 10",
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / pageAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Page number, default 1",
+ "type": "number"
+}v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'list' and adds account scope and status inclusion, but it does not explicitly state that no data is modified, nor does it mention authentication or rate limits. The implicit read-only nature earns a middle score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core purpose efficiently and directly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple paginated list tool, the description is adequate but minimal. It states the output includes connection status, and the schema covers pagination. However, with no output schema and no mention of response format or edge cases (e.g., no devices), an agent might lack some context. The presence of closely related sibling tools makes the lack of differentiation a gap, though that falls under usage guidelines.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% since both parameters (page and limit) have descriptions. The tool description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('every WhatsApp device'), and the scope ('on this account') while also specifying what information is returned ('connection status'). It distinguishes itself from device_status tools by explicitly covering all devices, not a single one.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like device_status, device_status_enhanced, or list_packages. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer when to pick it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.