wwebjs-mcp

chat_markUnread

Mark a WhatsApp chat as unread by providing chat ID and session ID, so you can identify it for later follow-up.

Instructions

[Chat] Mark this chat as unread

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": "chat_markUnread"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chatId`	No	Unique WhatsApp ID for the given chat (either group or personal)
`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

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavioral traits. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, whether it changes any other state, or what happens to the chat's unread count. For a state-mutating operation, this is minimal.

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 that immediately conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no filler words.

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?

For a state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is underspecified. It lacks context about usage, effects, or return behavior. The tool has only two parameters, but the description still leaves gaps regarding its behavior and relationship to sibling tools.

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?

The schema description covers 100% of parameters with clear explanations and examples, so the description adds no further parameter nuance. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description clearly states the action (mark as unread) and the resource (this chat), using a specific verb and object. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool client_markChatUnread, which appears to perform a similar operation at a different scope.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like client_markChatUnread. The phrase 'this chat' implicitly suggests a current chat context, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use explanation.

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

Deploy Server