meta-mcp

Get one WA message template

wa_template_get

Retrieve a WhatsApp Business template by its template ID. Optionally specify fields to include in the response.

Instructions

GET /{template_id}.

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": {
      "template_id": "<template_id>"
    },
    "name": "wa_template_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`template_id`	Yes
`fields`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description indicates a read operation via 'GET', but no annotations are provided to confirm safety or side effects. No behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, response format, or potential errors are disclosed. The minimal information is insufficient 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.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short (one line), but it is under-specified rather than concise. It does not earn its place as it merely restates the tool's purpose without adding value. Considerable context is missing, reducing its effectiveness.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the absence of output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about return values, usage scenarios, and parameter details. It fails to do so, making the tool definition incomplete for safe and correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions 'template_id' implicitly via the path. The 'fields' parameter is not explained at all. The description adds no meaning to the parameters beyond their names, leaving the agent to guess their purpose and acceptable values.

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 'GET /{template_id}' clearly states the action (GET) and resource (a template by ID). It is not a tautology as it adds the HTTP method, but it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'wa_message_templates' which likely lists templates. The name and title already convey the purpose, so the description adds minimal additional clarity.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. The description lacks any usage context, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate invocation scenarios.

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