WhatsApp MCP Stream

get_chat_by_id

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve WhatsApp chat metadata by providing a chat JID. Get details like name, participants, or last message for individual or group chats.

Instructions

Get WhatsApp chat metadata by JID.

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": "get_chat_by_id"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`jid`	Yes	The JID of the chat to retrieve (e.g., 123456789@s.whatsapp.net or 123456789-12345678@g.us)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedApr 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as what specific metadata is returned, any potential errors, or output format. It merely restates the purpose.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the essential purpose but could potentially include more detail without becoming verbose.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, read-only annotations), the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain what 'chat metadata' includes, and the lack of distinction from siblings leaves gaps for an agent to correctly select this tool.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with a detailed description and example for the 'jid' parameter. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already offers, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('WhatsApp chat metadata') with the identifier ('by JID'). It is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from similar siblings like get_chat_by_contact or get_direct_chat_by_contact_number, which might cause confusion.

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. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison with siblings.

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