wazap-mcp

Find who the user means

find_contact

Read-onlyIdempotent

Resolve a name, nickname, group, or number to a contact's chat ID. When ambiguous or not found, ask the user instead of guessing. Also lists people by tag.

Instructions

Who a name, nickname, relationship ("mama"), group, number or id means, before drafting. resolved: contact.chat_id, with number, note, tags, details and, in a write session, context. ambiguous or not_found: ask the user; never send to a guess. A name on several accounts: see fix. tag: its people.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tag`	No	List everyone filed under this tag instead
`kind`	No		any
`name`	No	What the user calls them ("Ana", "mamei", "fotbal"), or a number or id
`limit`	No	Ambiguous: at most 5 per account; a tag list: up to 50
`qualifier`	No	Tells two apart: "contabilitate", a group, the last 4 digits
`account_id`	No	Account id
`include_context`	No	Recent messages and the user's style, when resolved in a write session

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`fix`	No	What to do next, when not resolved
`next`	No	Resolved: how a message to them starts
`notes`	No	Caveats to act on or tell the user
`query`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`closest`	No	Only when not_found
`contact`	No	Only when resolved
`context`	No	Only when resolved, in a session that can write: what a draft to them is written after
`omitted`	No	Only when listed and cut by limit: how many more on each account
`contacts`	No	Only when listed: everyone filed under the tag
`can_draft`	No	Resolved in a session that cannot send
`account_id`	No	The account that answered; null when several accounts were searched and none answered alone
`candidates`	No	Only when ambiguous; best first
`accounts_searched`	No
`accounts_unavailable`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.0.3Sep 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already supply readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive hints, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: resolved results include chat_id plus notes/tags/details/context, ambiguity triggers a user question rather than a guessed send, tag mode returns people, and multi-account conflicts are flagged. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact, information-dense, and front-loaded with the core purpose. The telegraphic fragments and the unclear 'see fix' reference slightly hurt readability, but no sentence is filler.

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 7-parameter lookup tool, the description covers the main usage flow, disambiguation behavior, tag mode, and write-session context, and an output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out. The only real gap is that the 'fix' handling for same-name-on-several-accounts is referenced but not defined.

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 coverage is high (86%) and each parameter already has a meaningful description, so the main description does not need to re-document them. It adds some outcome context (what resolved means, tag mode, ambiguity limits), but not significant per-parameter meaning beyond the schema, earning the baseline 3.

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 states a specific action: resolve what a name, nickname, relationship, group, number, or ID refers to before drafting, and names the resolved output (contact.chat_id). This clearly separates contact resolution from sibling messaging/chat tools such as send_message or list_chats.

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?

It gives explicit usage timing ('before drafting') and a firm rule for ambiguous/not_found results: ask the user and never send to a guess. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as search or list_chats, and the 'see fix' reference is not self-contained, so the alternative-selection guidance is slightly incomplete.

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