wwebjs-mcp

channel_sendChannelAdminInvite

Send an admin invitation to a user for a WhatsApp channel, using the channel's unique chat ID and the user's ID.

Instructions

[Channel Chat] Sends a channel admin invitation to a user

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": {
      "sessionId": "<sessionId>"
    },
    "name": "channel_sendChannelAdminInvite"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`chatId`	No	Unique WhatsApp id for the given channel group
`userId`	No	The ID of the user to demote
`options`	No	Options for sending a channel admin invitation to a user
`sessionId`	Yes	Unique identifier for the session (alphanumeric and - allowed)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

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 only says 'Sends', which implies a mutation, but it does not disclose side effects, permissions required, whether the invitation needs to be accepted, or any consequences. This is inadequate for a tool that alters channel admin state.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the category, and contains no filler. It is appropriately sized for the simple action it describes.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool has no annotations and no output schema. The description and schema together fail to explain the invitation workflow, required state, or return behavior. The misleading userId description further undermines completeness for this moderately complex admin action.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3, but the description adds nothing about parameters. More importantly, the schema for userId says 'The ID of the user to demote', which contradicts the tool's purpose of sending an admin invitation. This actively misleads and warrants a lower score.

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 specifies a clear verb and resource: 'Sends a channel admin invitation to a user.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like channel_acceptChannelAdminInvite and channel_revokeChannelAdminInvite by focusing on the sending action.

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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or how it differs from accepting, revoking, or transferring admin invitations. The user must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

Deploy Server