Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
wwebjs-mcp

wwebjs-mcp

by victor-halla
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

client_getChatById

Retrieve a specific WhatsApp chat by its ID using a session. Returns chat details for the given chat ID.

Instructions

[Client] Get the chat

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": "client_getChatById"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chatIdNoID of the chat
sessionIdYesUnique identifier for the session (alphanumeric and - allowed)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

D1.9/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it reveals nothing about side effects, required permissions, return format, or whether chatId is truly optional. It is completely opaque.

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 is short but under-specified. It is not meaningful conciseness; it fails to convey essential information, similar to a placeholder. The single sentence does not earn its place as a useful explanation.

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?

The tool has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description must explain what the tool returns and any preconditions, but it does neither. It is inadequate for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret the result.

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 input schema already covers both parameters (chatId and sessionId) with descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but per the rubric, baseline 3 applies when schema coverage is high.

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 "[Client] Get the chat" is nearly a tautology of the tool name 'client_getChatById'. It does not specify what a chat is, what is returned, or how it differs from sibling tools like client_getChats or chat_fetchMessages.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for retrieving a specific chat by ID, nor does it exclude list-based retrieval tools. The description provides no context for selection.

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