wazap-mcp

Get one WhatsApp message in full

get_message

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetches full message details including quotes, reactions, poll votes, media, and read receipts. Searches all accounts if no account_id is given.

Instructions

One message in full: the message it quotes, each reaction with who left it, poll votes and event answers by person, its media, and on the user's own messages who it reached and who read it. Without account_id the id is looked for on every account.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`account_id`	No	Account id
`message_id`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes
`chat_id`	Yes
`timestamp`	Yes
`account_id`	Yes
`message_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv1.0.3Sep 23, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / account_id / description

Previous value: -"Registry account id (default, work, …). Omit to resolve from chat_id or message_id, or the default account."New value: +"Account id"

removedInput schema / properties / message_id / description

Removed value: -"Message id from read_messages / search_messages / get_message, e.g. \"false_4072...@s.whatsapp.net_3EB0...\""

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "account_id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "chat_id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "message_id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "text": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "timestamp": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "message_id",
+    "chat_id",
+    "text",
+    "timestamp",
+    "account_id"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedv0.15.0Sep 12, 2026

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"
+}

First observedv0.9.3Aug 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: it specifies exactly what data is retrieved (reactions, poll votes, etc.) and describes the fallback behavior when account_id is omitted. It does not discuss error handling or auth requirements, but given the annotations cover the safety profile, this is sufficient.

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 sentence plus a short note. It is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose ('One message in full'). Every clause adds value, and there is no fluff. The structure is efficient and easily scannable.

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?

The description is complete enough for an agent to call this tool correctly. It lists all the components of the full message, describes the account_id fallback, and the output schema exists (as indicated by 'Has output schema: true'), so the return format is covered by the schema. The only minor gap is error handling (e.g., what happens if the message is not found), but that is not critical for correct invocation. The description, combined with annotations and output schema, provides sufficient context.

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 50% (only account_id has a description: 'Account id'). The description adds meaningful semantics for account_id by explaining the lookup behavior when omitted. However, message_id has no description in the schema and is only implied by the tool name. The description does not provide format or syntax details for either parameter beyond the behavioral note. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but not fully.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving a single WhatsApp message in full detail. It enumerates exactly what is included (quoted message, reactions, poll votes, event answers, media, read receipts) which distinguishes it from siblings like read_messages (which likely returns multiple messages) or get_media (which only fetches media). The verb 'get' and resource 'message' are explicit.

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?

The description gives a clear usage context: this is for full message details, and the note about account_id explains a key behavior ('Without account_id the id is looked for on every account'). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like read_messages or search, nor does it name any sibling tools. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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