wwebjs-mcp

groupChat_demoteParticipants

Demote group chat participants to regular users by providing their WhatsApp participant IDs. Remove admin privileges to regain control over group permissions.

Instructions

[Group Chat] Demote the participants. Demote participants by ID to regular users

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": "groupChat_demoteParticipants"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`chatId`	No	Unique WhatsApp id for the given chat group
`sessionId`	Yes	Unique identifier for the session (alphanumeric and - allowed)
`participantIds`	No	Unique WhatsApp identifiers for the participants

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic effect (demote to regular users) but does not disclose permission requirements, side effects, reversibility, or error behavior. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is short and front-loaded, but the first sentence is somewhat redundant with the second. It could be condensed to a single sentence without losing meaning. Still, it is appropriately sized.

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?

This is a simple mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no behavioral details. The description only covers the core action, leaving out important context like what happens on failure, whether the action is reversible, and any permission requirements. It is minimally adequate but falls short for an agent to fully understand the tool.

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 all three parameters. The description adds 'by ID' which aligns with participantIds, but does not provide additional semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action (demote), the target (participants), and the outcome (to regular users). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like groupChat_promoteParticipants and groupChat_removeParticipants.

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 explicit guidelines on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like being a group admin, nor does it reference the promote/remove counterparts. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and '[Group Chat]' prefix.

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

Deploy Server