WhatsApp MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes: creating groups, listing chats, getting group participants, opening sessions, and sending messages. However, 'get_chats' could potentially overlap with group-related functionality since groups are a type of chat, but the descriptions clarify their focus areas.
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming follows a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_group, get_chats, send_message) with clear, descriptive names. The only minor deviation is 'open_session', which uses a verb_adjective_noun structure but remains readable and fits the pattern conceptually.
Tool Count4/5
With 5 tools, the count is reasonable for a WhatsApp server, covering core operations like messaging, group management, and session handling. It might benefit from additional tools for actions like deleting messages or managing contacts, but it's well-scoped for basic functionality.
Completeness3/5
The toolset covers key areas such as sending messages, creating groups, and retrieving chats/participants, but has notable gaps. For example, there are no tools for updating or deleting groups, managing contacts, or handling message reactions, which could limit agent workflows in a messaging domain.
Average 3/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions parameters for pagination but does not describe key traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, fields). For a list tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the main purpose followed by parameter details in a clear list format. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or wasted words. However, the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the purpose and parameters more seamlessly, but it remains 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 the complexity (a list tool with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers basic purpose and parameters but misses critical context like output format, error handling, or how it fits with sibling tools. For adequate agent use, it should provide more behavioral and contextual details beyond the minimal information given.
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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'limit' is the 'Maximum number of chats to return' with a default of 50, and 'offset' is for 'pagination' with a default of 0, clarifying their purposes. Since there are only 2 parameters and the schema lacks descriptions, this compensates well, though it could detail constraints like min/max values.
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 states 'Get a list of chats,' which clearly indicates the verb ('Get') and resource ('chats'), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'chats' entails (e.g., types, scope) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_group_participants' or 'open_session,' leaving room for ambiguity. This is a minimal viable description but vague in context.
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. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as how it relates to sibling tools like 'get_group_participants' for participant details or 'open_session' for active chats. Without such information, the agent must infer usage, which reduces effectiveness.
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't cover critical aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on failure, rate limits, or the expected return format. The description is minimal and lacks necessary operational context.
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 appropriately concise with a clear heading and bullet points for parameters. Every sentence adds value, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose. No redundant information is present, though it could benefit from more structured behavioral details.
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 the complexity of a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on success/failure responses, error handling, dependencies (e.g., session requirements), and behavioral traits. For a mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to operate effectively.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists both parameters with brief explanations ('Name of the group to create', 'List of participant phone numbers'), adding basic meaning beyond the schema's titles. However, it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., phone number format, group name length limits), leaving gaps in parameter understanding.
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 verb 'Create' and resource 'new WhatsApp group', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_chats' or 'send_message', though the creation action is inherently different from retrieval/messaging operations.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active session via 'open_session'), exclusions, or comparative context with sibling tools like managing existing groups versus creating new ones.
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 behavioral disclosure. While 'Send a message' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like required permissions, rate limits, whether messages are encrypted, delivery confirmation, or what happens on failure. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a bulleted parameter list. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more detailed given the lack of schema descriptions. The formatting is clean and easy to parse.
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?
For a 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (success/failure indicators, message ID, etc.), doesn't address error conditions, and provides minimal behavioral context. The parameter explanations help but don't compensate for the overall contextual gaps.
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 description explicitly lists all three parameters with brief explanations, adding meaningful context beyond the schema's 0% description coverage. It clarifies that 'reply_to' is optional and identifies what each parameter represents. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., phone number format, content length limits) or deeper semantic constraints.
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 ('Send a message') and the target resource ('to a chat'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling tools like 'create_group' or 'open_session', which might also involve messaging functionality in some contexts.
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 like 'create_group' for group messaging or 'get_chats' for retrieving messages. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions for this messaging operation.
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Open a new WhatsApp session' implies initialization or connection, it lacks critical details: whether this requires credentials, if it's idempotent, what happens to existing sessions, potential side effects, or error conditions. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a session management tool.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the essential information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 the complexity of session management (which often involves authentication, state persistence, and error handling), the description is insufficient. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral context, it fails to provide complete guidance. The agent would need to guess about return values, success/failure states, and operational constraints.
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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose without redundancy. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools when the schema coverage is complete.
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 ('Open') and target resource ('a new WhatsApp session'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'create_group' or 'send_message', which would require explicit differentiation for a perfect score.
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 like 'get_chats' or 'send_message'. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., authentication status), timing considerations, or explicit exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal contextual direction.
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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 perfectly concise: one clear purpose statement followed by a parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.
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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter meaning adequately. However, the lack of behavioral information (especially with no annotations) and usage guidance relative to siblings leaves gaps that could hinder effective tool selection.
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 description explicitly documents the single parameter 'group_id' and explains it as 'The WhatsApp ID of the group', adding meaningful context beyond the schema's basic type information. With 0% schema description coverage, this fully compensates for the schema's lack of detail.
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 verb ('Get') and resource ('participants of a WhatsApp group'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_chats' which might also involve group data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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 like 'get_chats' or 'create_group'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/msaelices/whatsapp-mcp-server'

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