channel_statusCheck whether a WhatsApp channel is linked and connected. Optionally retrieve its health readings and overall verdict.
Read this channel's state from the gateway: whether the number is linked and connected. Set include_safety to also read the channel's health readings and overall verdict.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_safety | No | Also read the safety readings (a second GET request). Default false. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld. The description adds genuine extra context beyond them: the state is fetched from a gateway, and enabling include_safety triggers 'a second GET request', disclosing an additional round-trip cost that the annotations do not convey.
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 tight sentences, zero filler, front-loading the core read behavior before the optional-parameter note. Every clause earns its place.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it names the fields returned (linked/connected status, plus health readings and overall verdict when requested). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented in the schema ('Also read the safety readings (a second GET request). Default false.'). The description largely restates that, adding only the framing that the readings include an 'overall verdict', so the baseline 3 applies.
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 description states a specific verb and resource ('Read this channel's state from the gateway') and immediately enumerates what that state contains ('whether the number is linked and connected'). The sibling tools operate on entirely different resources (chats, contacts, groups), so no differentiation is needed and none is ambiguous.
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?
It implies the use case (checking a channel's linkage/connection) and gives conditional guidance for include_safety, but never states when to prefer this over another call or any prerequisite/exclusion. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.