SendPulse WhatsApp MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get Bot Statistics

sendpulse_get_bot_stats

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve subscriber counts and message statistics for a specific SendPulse WhatsApp bot using its bot_id, so you can monitor audience and messaging performance.

Instructions

Get subscriber counts and message statistics for a specific bot.

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": {
      "bot_id": "<bot_id>"
    },
    "name": "sendpulse_get_bot_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bot_id`	Yes	Bot ID (from sendpulse_list_bots)
`account`	No	Account name (only one configured: brand_a)	brand_a

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a bit by naming the categories returned (subscriber counts, message statistics), but says nothing about time ranges, pagination, or freshness of the stats.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriate for a simple two-parameter read tool. It is efficient though not especially information-dense.

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?

For a read-only stats tool with no output schema and fully documented params, the description is minimally adequate. It omits any indication of what the statistics response contains structurally or over what period the counts are computed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: bot_id's source (sendpulse_list_bots) and the account default are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('subscriber counts and message statistics for a specific bot'), which is more precise than the title alone. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling stats/list tools like sendpulse_list_bots, but the scope is clear.

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 statement of prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as sendpulse_list_bots (which the schema references as the source of bot_id). Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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