@instantreply/mcp

send_whatsapp_template

Destructive

Trigger a WhatsApp template or journey message by trigger name or journey ID for consented or transactional sends; confirm before sending.

Instructions

Trigger a WhatsApp journey/template send by trigger_name or journey_id. Use only for consented or transactional sends and ask before sending.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "phone": "<phone>"
    },
    "name": "send_whatsapp_template"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`phone`	Yes
`metadata`	No
`journey_id`	No
`message_type`	No	utility
`trigger_name`	No
`idempotency_key`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new context: the consent/transactional restriction and the requirement to confirm before sending. It omits other behavioral facts such as idempotency behavior or failure/return characteristics for a 6-param mutation.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the constraint; no filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, 6-parameter write with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description covers selection and consent but leaves most parameters, idempotency semantics, and expected results undocumented.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it only explains the two selector parameters (trigger_name vs journey_id). Phone, metadata, the message_type enum, and idempotency_key are left entirely to the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (trigger/send) and resource (WhatsApp journey/template) and clarifies the two ways to select the target (trigger_name or journey_id). It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like trigger_journey or send_message, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

Gives an explicit eligibility condition ('only for consented or transactional sends') and a behavioral rule ('ask before sending'), which is real usage guidance. It stops short of naming the alternative tools or stating when to prefer trigger_journey over this one.

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