loginwa
OfficialServer Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.1.2
- Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose: device status, OTP start/verify, message sending, and campaign management (list, get, create, send). No two tools overlap in function, so an agent can confidently select the right one based on the action needed.
Naming Consistency4/5Most tools follow the verb_noun pattern (get_campaign, send_message, list_campaigns, etc.), but device_status breaks the pattern by using a noun_noun form instead of something like get_device_status. This is a minor deviation from an otherwise consistent style.
Tool Count5/5With 8 tools, the set is well-scoped for a WhatsApp service covering messaging, OTP, and campaigns. Each tool earns its place without bloat or excess, staying comfortably within the ideal 3-15 range.
Completeness4/5The core workflows are covered: send messages, handle OTP, and manage campaigns. However, campaign management lacks update/delete operations, and device management is limited to status only. These are minor gaps that agents can work around but might require external fallback.
Average 3.8/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 7 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
This server has been verified by its author.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the media_url requirement but does not mention side effects, error conditions, required connectivity state, or what happens if the device is not connected. The send operation is implied but its execution details are opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. The second sentence provides a critical constraint without wasted words, making it appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits details about group messaging, optional fields like caption/filename/mimetype, defaults for type, device_id selection, and expected response behavior, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all 9 parameters. The description adds minimal extra information by restating the public https media requirement, which already appears in the schema. It does not explain parameter interactions like ptt for audio or group JID usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Send') and resource ('WhatsApp text or media message'), and specifies a prerequisite ('from a connected LoginWA device'). It is distinct from sibling campaign tools by focusing on one-off direct messages, though it does not explicitly contrast with send_campaign.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_campaign. The only usage-related information is a requirement that media types need a public https media_url and the tool uses a connected device, which are prerequisites rather than selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The only behavioral hint is 'paginated', but that merely mirrors the page parameter in the schema. There is no mention of read-only nature, potential return format, limits, or other behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and a key attribute.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is reasonably complete. However, the lack of an output schema and any detail about returned fields or any prerequisites leaves a minor gap for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the sole 'page' parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds nothing beyond the word 'paginated', providing no new semantic value over the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List'), the specific resource ('LoginWA broadcast campaigns'), and a key detail ('paginated'). It is distinct from siblings like get_campaign (which presumably retrieves a single campaign) and create/send operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool relative to alternatives such as get_campaign or create_campaign. It does not explicitly state that this is for browsing/listing all campaigns or that one should use get_campaign for a specific campaign.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (sends a one-time code) and a prerequisite (via a connected device), which is helpful. Yet it omits details about session handling, potential side effects, or how the session links to otp_verify, leaving room for uncertainty.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the action, target, and prerequisite without redundancy. Every word contributes value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is sufficient for selecting the tool, but it does not mention how the session ID or code is returned, nor does it note the complementary otp_verify tool for completing the flow. With no output schema or annotations, this leaves a gap for an agent needing to chain tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema describes all five parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond that already in the schema, but it does not need to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool starts a LoginWA OTP session by sending a one-time code to a WhatsApp phone number. It specifies the action (send), the resource (WhatsApp number), and the context (OTP session), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like otp_verify and send_message.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage is implied by the OTP-specific wording and the mention of 'LoginWA OTP session,' making it clear when to use this tool. However, there are no explicit alternatives or exclusions mentioned, so the agent must infer the boundary against other messaging tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'verify' without disclosing potential side effects (e.g., whether the OTP or session is consumed/invalidated), success/failure behavior, or any auth requirements. The agent has no information about what happens after verification.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One precise sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Verify', and no fluff. Every word contributes meaning, and the reference to otp_start is concise but informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with only two params, both documented. However, with no output schema, the description doesn't explain what result the agent should expect (e.g., success/failure, session state). It is minimally viable but lacks behavioral context that would make it fully self-contained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes both parameters (otp_code as 'Code entered by the user' and session_id as 'OTP session_id from otp_start') with 100% coverage. The description adds minimal value beyond that, merely reinforcing the session_id's origin. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Verify an OTP code') and the specific resource ('a LoginWA session_id returned by otp_start'). This differentiates it from otp_start (which starts the flow) and sends a strong signal about the tool's role in the OTP verification sequence.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear usage context by linking the session_id to otp_start, implying the tool should be used after otp_start. It doesn't explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, but the precondition is evident and sufficient for a simple verification step.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, whether authentication is required, or what happens if the campaign is not found. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the verb and resource.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-id tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It lacks detail on what 'details' includes, but given the low complexity and clear purpose, it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully documents the single parameter campaign_id with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description only adds 'by id', which mirrors the schema and does not provide additional meaning about the parameter format or usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get details' with a clear resource 'LoginWA broadcast campaign' and 'by id', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_campaigns, create_campaign, and send_campaign. It precisely states what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you have a campaign_id and need details, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or when not to use it, e.g., 'Use list_campaigns to get all campaigns.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the device requirement and provides a user-facing fallback, but it omits details about the side effects of queueing, error conditions, or whether the operation is reversible, leaving notable gaps for a mutating tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two sentences, well-structured, and front-loaded with the primary action first. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what action is taken, what prerequisites exist, and what to do when the prerequisite is not met. It could elaborate on post-queue behavior, but it is generally complete enough to guide correct use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage of parameters, with a clear description for campaign_id ('Campaign id to send'). The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, which matches the baseline expectation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Queue' and clearly identifies the resource and its applicable states ('draft/queued/paused LoginWA campaign'), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools such as create_campaign, list_campaigns, and send_message.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a concrete usage prerequisite and fallback action (requires at least one online device, otherwise direct user to a URL), which helps the agent decide when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, so it falls just short of full marks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It honestly states that it reports online/offline status, instructs the user to open a pairing URL when offline, and clarifies that it does not initiate QR/pairing races. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the bare schema, though it does not detail return format or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three concise sentences, each adding value. The first states the primary purpose, the second provides actionable pairing guidance, and the third sets a behavioral boundary. No waste or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it covers listing behavior, status reporting, offline handling, and what it intentionally avoids. A small gap is that it does not describe the exact structure of the returned status, but the phrase 'report online/offline' sufficiently implies the core output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (device_id is fully described). The description adds minimal extra meaning ('or one device by id' and 'when omitted, lists all devices') which mostly overlaps with the schema. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the parameter adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List LoginWA WhatsApp devices (or one device by id) and report online/offline honestly.' It uses a specific verb (list/report) and identifies the resource (devices), distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on campaigns and messaging.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool: to check device status and inform pairing if offline. It explicitly states what it does not do ('Does not start in-chat QR/pairing races'), which sets expectations, though it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance beyond that exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the campaign starts as a draft, or queued if schedule_at is set, and that it does not send until send_campaign is called. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple 'create' statement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by essential workflow details. Every word adds value with no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the creation workflow but omits what the tool returns (e.g., campaign ID needed for send_campaign). It does not explain how to reference the created campaign, which is a notable gap for successful invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that 'schedule_at' changes the initial state to queued, and that contacts are inline. These details go beyond the schema's field descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a LoginWA broadcast campaign' with specific verb 'Create' and resource 'broadcast campaign'. It further specifies 'inline contact list' and distinguishes from siblings by noting it only creates, not sends ('Call send_campaign to begin').
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on the tool's role: it creates a draft (or queued) campaign, and instructs to call send_campaign to start sending. This implies an alternative workflow and when to use this tool, though it does not explicitly state 'when not to use'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/satuapps/loginwa-sdk'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server