Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
wwebjs-mcp

wwebjs-mcp

by victor-halla
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

chat_runMethod

Execute a method on a WhatsApp chat and return the result. Specify the chat ID, method name, and optional options to get the outcome.

Instructions

[Chat] Execute a method on the chat. Execute a method on the chat and return the result

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_runMethod"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chatIdNoThe chat id which contains the message
methodNoThe name of the method to execute
optionsNoThe options to pass to the method
sessionIdYesUnique identifier for the session (alphanumeric and - allowed)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It offers no insight into side effects, required permissions, or the dynamic nature of method invocation. For a tool that can execute arbitrary methods, this is a significant omission.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description contains two sentences that are essentially redundant: 'Execute a method on the chat' is repeated. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness, as the second sentence adds no new information.

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

Completeness1/5

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

No output schema, no annotations, and no explanation of return values, error handling, or available methods. For a generic method execution tool, this description is extremely insufficient and provides almost no useful context.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. However, the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, and the schema's own parameter descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'method' just says 'The name of the method to execute').

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Execute a method on the chat' restates the tool name with minimal specificity. It fails to indicate which methods are supported or what concrete action takes place, making it nearly tautological.

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 generic method runner versus the many specific chat operation tools (e.g., chat_getLabels, chat_sendSeen). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools