wwebjs-mcp

message_edit

Edit an existing WhatsApp message by specifying its unique message ID and new content. Provide session ID and chat ID to target the correct conversation.

Instructions

[Message] Edit the message

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": "message_edit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`chatId`	No	The chat id which contains the message
`content`	No	The content of the message
`options`	No	Options used when editing the message
`messageId`	No	Unique WhatsApp identifier for the message
`sessionId`	Yes	Unique identifier for the session (alphanumeric and - allowed)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Edit the message'—a mutation—but provides no details on side effects, permissions, reversibility, or response behavior. This is a significant gap.

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 extremely brief but under-specified; it reads as a placeholder rather than a meaningful explanation. It lacks the detail needed to be useful, making it inefficient despite its brevity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 params, nested options, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It provides no information about return values, side effects, or usage context, leaving too much to inference.

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% for all 5 parameters, including examples and descriptions. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('the message'), clearly indicating the tool's action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like message_delete or message_react, though it doesn't elaborate on what aspects can be edited.

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, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description merely states the action without context.

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

Deploy Server