Skip to main content
Glama
razvangirgiz

wazap-mcp

by razvangirgiz

Get WhatsApp contact details

get_contact
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve full details for one WhatsApp contact by contact ID or phone number, including name, number, about text, profile picture, and saved, business, or blocked status.

Instructions

Full details for one contact: name, number, about text, profile picture URL, whether they are a saved contact, a business, or blocked.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
account_idNoRegistry account id (default, work, …). Omit to resolve from chat_id or message_id, or the default account.
contact_idYesContact id from search_contacts / list_chats, or a phone number

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.15.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / account_id
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Registry account id (default, work, …). Omit to resolve from chat_id or message_id, or the default account.",
      +  "minLength": 1,
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  2. First observedv0.9.3

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by listing the returned fields, which helps the agent know what data is available, but it says nothing about error behavior, account requirements, or rate limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. The list of returned fields is efficiently packed and directly useful.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the important work of enumerating returned fields, which compensates well. It omits parameter constraints and error cases, but for a simple read tool whose annotations and schema cover those areas, it is nearly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents contact_id and account_id. The description does not mention either parameter by name or add any usage detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 states the specific resource (one contact) and scope (full details), enumerating the exact fields returned. The singular 'one contact' distinguishes it from plural-list siblings like search_contacts and list_chats without ambiguity.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites. The phrase 'Full details for one contact' implies a retrieval use case but offers no routing or exclusion rules.

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