Skip to main content
Glama
luiso2

Evolution API WhatsApp MCP Server

by luiso2

send_list

Send interactive list messages via WhatsApp Business to present multiple options with titles, descriptions, and selectable rows for user interaction.

Instructions

Send interactive list message

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
buttonTextNoButton text
descriptionNoList description
instanceNameYesInstance name
numberYesRecipient phone number
sectionsYesList sections
titleNoList title

Implementation Reference

  • The primary handler function for the 'send_list' MCP tool. It processes the input arguments, calls the EvolutionAPI.sendList service method, and formats the response as MCP content.
    private async handleSendList(args: any) {
      const result = await evolutionAPI.sendList(args.instanceName, {
        number: args.number,
        title: args.title,
        description: args.description,
        buttonText: args.buttonText,
        sections: args.sections
      });
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: 'text',
            text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2)
          }
        ]
      };
    }
  • src/index.ts:159-194 (registration)
    Registration of the 'send_list' tool in the MCP tools array. Defines the tool name, description, and complete input schema for validation.
    {
      name: 'send_list',
      description: 'Send interactive list message',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          instanceName: { type: 'string', description: 'Instance name' },
          number: { type: 'string', description: 'Recipient phone number' },
          title: { type: 'string', description: 'List title' },
          description: { type: 'string', description: 'List description' },
          buttonText: { type: 'string', description: 'Button text' },
          sections: {
            type: 'array',
            items: {
              type: 'object',
              properties: {
                title: { type: 'string' },
                rows: {
                  type: 'array',
                  items: {
                    type: 'object',
                    properties: {
                      title: { type: 'string' },
                      description: { type: 'string' },
                      rowId: { type: 'string' }
                    }
                  }
                }
              }
            },
            description: 'List sections'
          }
        },
        required: ['instanceName', 'number', 'sections']
      }
    },
  • Dispatch case in the main CallToolRequest handler that routes 'send_list' calls to the specific handleSendList method.
    case 'send_list':
      return await this.handleSendList(args);
  • Supporting service method in EvolutionAPI class that makes the HTTP POST request to the underlying Evolution API endpoint for sending list messages.
    async sendList(instanceName: string, data: {
      number: string;
      title?: string;
      description?: string;
      buttonText?: string;
      footerText?: string;
      sections: Array<{
        title: string;
        rows: Array<{
          title: string;
          description?: string;
          rowId: string;
        }>;
      }>;
    }): Promise<Message> {
      const response = await this.client.post(`/message/sendList/${instanceName}`, data);
      return response.data;
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Send interactive list message' implies a write/mutation operation but provides no information about authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, what happens on success/failure, or whether this is a synchronous/asynchronous operation. The description doesn't mention any behavioral traits beyond the basic action implied by the name.

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 extremely concise - just three words that directly state the tool's function. There's zero wasted language, and it's front-loaded with the essential information. While it could be more informative, as a standalone statement it's maximally efficient.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given that this is a mutation tool (sending messages implies writing/changing state) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. The agent needs to understand what this tool does beyond the basic action - what authentication is required, what the response looks like, error conditions, etc. With multiple similar message-sending tools and no behavioral context, this description leaves significant gaps for proper tool selection and invocation.

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%, so all parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what's already documented in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description. The description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the comprehensive schema.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Send interactive list message' clearly states the action (send) and the resource type (interactive list message), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling tools like 'send_buttons', 'send_media', 'send_template', or 'send_text' - all of which also send messages but with different content types. The purpose is clear at a basic level but lacks sibling differentiation.

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. With multiple message-sending siblings (send_buttons, send_media, send_template, send_text), the agent receives no indication that this tool is specifically for list-style interactive messages versus other interactive formats. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison to similar tools.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/luiso2/mcp-evolution-api'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server