Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
wwebjs-mcp

wwebjs-mcp

by victor-halla
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

client_getLabelById

Fetch a WhatsApp label's details by providing the label ID and session ID. Returns the label matching the given identifiers.

Instructions

[Client] Get the label

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_getLabelById"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
labelIdNoID of the label
sessionIdYesUnique identifier for the session (alphanumeric and - allowed)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a non-mutating read, but the description provides no details about return format, possible errors, or session requirements, which is insufficient given the lack of annotation coverage.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is extremely concise—five words with no wasted text—but it is a fragment rather than a complete sentence and under-specifies the tool's purpose. It is not as severe as a pure tautology, but it could be more informative without losing conciseness.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple getter with only two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about what the returned label contains, when to prefer this over client_getLabels, or any behavior beyond 'get'. More context would improve completeness.

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 documents both labelId and sessionId with descriptions and examples, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.

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 'Get the label' clearly states the operation (retrieving a label) and identifies the resource. However, it does not explicitly say 'by ID' or distinguish among sibling tools like client_getLabels or client_getChatLabels, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as client_getLabels or client_getChatsByLabelId. The description does not mention required sessionId or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema.

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