SendPulse WhatsApp MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List WhatsApp Bots

sendpulse_list_bots

Read-onlyIdempotent

List all connected WhatsApp bots for a SendPulse account to get bot IDs needed for contact, chat, and message operations.

Instructions

List all connected WhatsApp bots for an account. Use this first to get bot IDs.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "sendpulse_list_bots"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's only addition is workflow context ('use this first'), not behavior such as pagination, result limits, or empty-list behavior. A 3 reflects added value on top of already-rich annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the purpose front-loaded and the workflow hint immediately after. Nothing to trim.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only, zero-required-param list tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is essentially sufficient. Minor gap: no hint about the shape of the returned items beyond 'bot IDs' despite there being no output schema.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'account' parameter already carries its own description with default and the note that only brand_a is configured. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb (List) and resource (connected WhatsApp bots) with clear scope ('for an account'). No sibling tool lists bots, so an agent can route here without ambiguity versus sendpulse_list_chats, sendpulse_list_flows, or sendpulse_get_bot_stats.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit sequencing guidance: 'Use this first to get bot IDs,' which tells the agent this is a prerequisite discovery step. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use or which tools consume the returned IDs, so it's clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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