chatkazi-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.3
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action: session management (list, start, status, QR, logout) versus messaging (text, media). No two tools have overlapping purposes, and the descriptors clearly differentiate them.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., list_sessions, start_session, send_whatsapp_text). The pattern is uniform and predictable across the set.
Tool Count5/5
Seven tools is well-scoped for a WhatsApp MCP server covering session lifecycle and message sending. Each tool serves a necessary function without redundancy or bloat.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers the full session lifecycle (initiate, check status, retrieve QR, log out, list) and both primary message types (text and media). No obvious gaps for the stated domain.
Average 3.7/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 15 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on June 3, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under ISC License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It fails to mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a QR code is needed), idempotency, or what happens if a session with the same ID already exists. This is a minimal statement without behavioral depth.
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 a single sentence that is direct and contains no filler. It is appropriately sized for a tool with one well-documented parameter.
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?
The tool has no annotations and no output schema, and the description does not explain the expected outcome of starting a session or how it fits into the session lifecycle (e.g., needing to get a QR code). This leaves the agent with insufficient context to fully understand the operation.
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 has 100% description coverage, with the sessionId parameter fully documented including its default value. The description adds no information about parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description uses the specific verb 'Initialize' and clearly identifies the resource as a WhatsApp session connection. The word 'new' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_session_status, get_session_qr, and logout_session, which operate on existing sessions.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use start_session versus alternatives like get_session_status or logout_session. The description only states what the tool does without any context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention prerequisites like an active session, the requirement that the URL be publicly accessible, or potential failure modes. The operation 'send' implies side effects, but the description gives no further insight into execution context or consequences.
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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It names the tool's action and object, plus the media types, without wasting words or including extraneous detail.
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?
Despite a rich input schema, the description omits critical operational context: it does not mention that a WhatsApp session must exist, that the URL must be publicly accessible, or what the tool returns. There is no output schema, so the agent has no idea about success/failure indicators. For a tool with several optional parameters and no annotations, the description is insufficient.
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?
All parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no parameter-level information beyond the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description does not clarify any additional semantics like how the media type affects the URL handling.
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?
The description clearly states the action (send) and resource (media message), and lists the supported media types (image, video, audio, or document), which distinguishes it from the sibling send_whatsapp_text. It is specific and unambiguous.
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?
The description clearly implies this tool is for sending media, as opposed to text messages, and lists the media types. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or point to send_whatsapp_text as the alternative, so it stops short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'initialized session' as a prerequisite but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what errors may occur, or what the returned pairing link looks like.
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 a single, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource clearly.
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?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. While the description is minimally sufficient, it omits details about the return format (e.g., URL string vs. image) and any additional prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.
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% (sessionId described as 'identifier of the session'). The description adds no new parameter details beyond the schema, but the schema already provides sufficient clarity, 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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Retrieve' and the specific resource 'QR code pairing link' for a session. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_session_status (status) and start_session (initiation).
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?
The phrase 'for an initialized session' implies this tool is used after session initialization, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the sibling list makes the distinction obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation with examples of possible states, but it does not describe the exact return format, error behavior (e.g., session not found), or whether any side effects occur. It adds some value with the state examples but lacks deeper transparency.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and provides useful examples without any fluff or redundancy.
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?
With only one parameter and no output schema, the description should compensate by explaining the return format more explicitly. While it gives examples of states, it does not list all possible values or error cases, making it only partially complete.
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 schema provides full coverage for the single parameter sessionId, including a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific information, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: checking the current state of a specific WhatsApp session. The verb 'Check' and resource 'current state' are specific, and the examples (connected, qr_ready) distinguish it from sibling tools that list, start, or manage sessions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The implied usage is to check the status of a single session, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this versus list_sessions, get_session_qr, or other alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, so the guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action without noting requirements like session existence, message delivery semantics, or error conditions. This lack of transparency is a significant gap.
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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action. There is no redundant or extraneous wording.
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 tool's simplicity and complete schema coverage, the description is minimally sufficient for an agent to invoke it. However, the absence of any behavioral or usage context, such as the optional sessionId handling or what happens on failure, means it is not fully complete for a production scenario.
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 already covers all three parameters with descriptions, and the tool description does not add any param-specific meaning beyond the schema. Per the rubric, full schema coverage sets a baseline of 3, which is where this sits.
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?
The description uses the specific verb 'send' and identifies the resource as a 'plain text WhatsApp message', clearly distinguishing from sibling send_whatsapp_media. It states the recipient as the target, making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
The phrase 'plain text' implies text-only messages and implicitly contrasts with the sibling send_whatsapp_media, providing context on scope. However, it does not explicitly state when to use session-related tools or mention exclusions, so it falls short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool clears authentication state, which is a mutation, but does not mention side effects such as token invalidation, irreversibility, or impact on other sessions. It's adequate but not rich.
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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and contains no filler. Every word earns its place.
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 one-parameter logout tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and effect. It lacks details about preconditions (e.g., session must exist) or error behavior, but given the simple nature, it is largely complete.
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 schema already describes sessionId as 'The identifier of the session to log out.' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, such as format or constraints, so the 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?
The description 'Disconnect and log out a WhatsApp session, clearing its authentication state' uses a specific verb (log out) with a specific resource (WhatsApp session) and states the effect (clearing authentication state). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_session_status or start_session.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: use when you want to end a session. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions versus alternatives like get_session_status or list_sessions. It's clear but implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies the scope by specifying 'connected to the ChatKazi account', which adds context. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, the structure of the returned data, potential pagination, or any side effects. For a list operation, these details are useful but not fully essential, so some transparency is present but incomplete.
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 a single sentence that states the tool's purpose and scope with no redundant wording. It is efficiently structured and immediately communicates the essential action, earning a perfect score for conciseness.
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?
The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema, so the description is the sole source of expectations about the result. While 'list all sessions' conveys the core functionality, it does not specify what information is included for each session (e.g., session ID, status, creation time) or how to handle the output. Given the availability of sibling tools like get_session_status, some clarification about the relationship would improve completeness, but the description is minimally viable for this simple operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies that no parameters are needed. It adds no additional parameter semantics because there are none to describe, which is appropriate given the schema coverage is 100%.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: listing all WhatsApp sessions connected to the ChatKazi account. It uses a specific verb ('list') and a distinct resource (sessions), and it is unambiguously different from sibling tools like start_session, get_session_status, or send_whatsapp_text, which focus on creating, monitoring, or using sessions rather than enumerating them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for enumerating sessions, which is a natural fit when an agent needs an overview of active sessions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as get_session_status (which likely targets a specific session) or start_session (which initiates a new session). No exclusions or alternative references are provided, so guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![chatkazi-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lxmwaniky/chatkazi-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lxmwaniky/chatkazi-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![chatkazi-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lxmwaniky/chatkazi-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lxmwaniky/chatkazi-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/lxmwaniky/chatkazi-mcp'

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