wwebjs-mcp

channel_setReactionSetting

Updates a WhatsApp channel's available reactions. Set reaction code to 0 for none, 1 for basic emoji set, or 2 for all reactions.

Instructions

[Channel Chat] Updates available reactions to use in the channel. Valid values for passing to the method are: 0 for NONE reactions to be available 1 for BASIC reactions to be available: 👍, ❤️, 😂, 😮, 😢, 🙏 2 for ALL reactions to be available

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_setReactionSetting"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`chatId`	No	Unique WhatsApp id for the given channel group
`sessionId`	Yes	Unique identifier for the session (alphanumeric and - allowed)
`reactionCode`	No	New reaction setting for the channel

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists valid values and their meanings, but fails to mention permissions, side effects, reversibility, or what happens to existing reactions. This is a mutation tool, so more transparency is expected.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded, with all information in a single sentence plus a clear list of valid values. It is slightly awkward in structure but contains no fluff.

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 sufficient for a simple setter tool, providing complete valid value documentation. However, it lacks any mention of return values, errors, or permission requirements, and there is no output schema or annotations to fill those gaps.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Although schema coverage is 100%, the schema descriptions are minimal. The description adds meaningful value by enumerating the exact codes (0, 1, 2) and corresponding reaction sets, going beyond the schema's 'New reaction setting' description.

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 it updates available reactions in a channel, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling channel tools like channel_setSubject or channel_setDescription by focusing on reaction settings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use this tool (to change channel reaction settings) but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives. No guidance is given on when not to use it or how it compares to other channel configuration tools.

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

Deploy Server