Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
wwebjs-mcp

wwebjs-mcp

by victor-halla
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

contact_getFormattedNumber

Convert a WhatsApp contact ID into a human-readable formatted phone number, such as turning 12345678901@c.us into +1 (234) 5678-901.

Instructions

[Contact] Get the formatted phone number. Returns the contact's formatted phone number, (12345678901@c.us) => (+1 (234) 5678-901).

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": "contact_getFormattedNumber"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contactIdNoUnique WhatsApp ID for the contact
sessionIdYesUnique identifier for the session (alphanumeric and - allowed)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It provides an example of the transformation, which adds transparency, but doesn't disclose edge cases, error behavior, or side effects. The read-only nature is implied by 'Get' but not explicitly stated.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and includes a clear example. No unnecessary words; every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The schema is rich and the example clarifies the return format. However, the optional nature of contactId (only sessionId is required) is not explained in the description, leaving a small but notable gap.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides; contactId and sessionId are already documented.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the formatted phone number' with a specific transformation example. It differentiates from siblings like contact_getCountryCode and contact_getProfilePicUrl by focusing on number formatting.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Sibling client_getFormattedNumber exists but no distinction is provided. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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