Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
wwebjs-mcp

wwebjs-mcp

by victor-halla
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

client_runMethod

Execute a method on an active WhatsApp client session and retrieve the result.

Instructions

[Client] Execute a method on the client. Execute a method on the client 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": "client_runMethod"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'execute a method' without mentioning possible side effects, permissions, or error behavior. It doesn't add context beyond the tool's name and schema.

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 only two sentences, but the second sentence is nearly identical to the first, creating redundancy without adding information. This is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.

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 generic method-execution tool with no output schema and no documented method list, the description is insufficient. It doesn't clarify what methods can be invoked, the format of options, or the result, leaving the agent to guess.

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%, with each parameter (method, options, sessionId) already documented. The description adds no additional parameter-level information, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states the tool executes a method on the client and returns the result, which clarifies the basic action and resource. However, 'method' is generic and it doesn't distinguish from sibling _runMethod tools beyond the 'client' prefix, so it's only moderately clear.

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 chat_runMethod or message_runMethod. There's no mention of what methods are appropriate or any context for selecting this generic executor.

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