Send WhatsApp text messages to a phone number, group, or JID. Confirm before sending and wait 2 seconds between sends to prevent account restrictions.
Send a text message. Requires confirm=true. Add 2s gap between sends to avoid bans.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | JID, group JID, or phone number | |
| text | Yes | ||
| confirm | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it supplies real behavioral content: confirm must be true and rapid successive sends risk bans. It does not describe the outcome of a successful send or failure modes, but the safety-relevant behavior is disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, with the action verb first and each sentence carrying a distinct fact. Nothing is wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 3-parameter tool the description is mostly adequate, and the critical operational warnings are present. However, there is no output schema and no description of return values, failure behavior, or what confirm actually gates, so an agent still has some unstated assumptions about the call's result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents "to" as a JID/group/phone, and coverage is only 33%, so the description needed to fill in text and confirm. It adds meaning to confirm by stating it must be true, and "text message" loosely identifies the text parameter's role, but it adds nothing concrete about text content beyond the schema constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The lead phrase "Send a text message" names a specific verb and resource and, by specifying "text," separates this tool from the sibling send_file and status-posting tools. It could be stronger by naming sibling tools explicitly, but the core intent is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The sentence "Requires confirm=true" gives a prerequisite that is not inferable from the schema, since confirm defaults to false. The 2s-gap warning provides an explicit operational cadence. It does not mention alternatives such as send_file or ai_reply, so it stops short of a full when-to-use statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.