wwebjs-mcp

message_runMethod

Execute a method on a WhatsApp message and return the result. Provide session, chat, and message identifiers to run operations like getInfo.

Instructions

[Message] Execute a method on the message. Execute a method on the message 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": "message_runMethod"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`chatId`	No	The chat id which contains the message
`method`	No	The name of the method to execute
`options`	No	The options to pass to the method
`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

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states that the method returns a result, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, error behavior, or whether the method is a read or mutation. This is a significant gap for a generic method runner.

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 short but redundant, repeating 'Execute a method on the message' twice. The second sentence adds only 'and return the result,' which could be merged into the first sentence. It is not grossly verbose but fails to be optimally concise.

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?

The tool is a generic method runner with no output schema, no annotations, and complex siblings. The description does not explain what methods can be invoked, how options are used, or what the result structure looks like, leaving the agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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%, so the schema fully documents all five parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics or context beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score.

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 clearly identifies the resource (message) and the action (execute a method), distinguishing it from sibling tools like chat_runMethod and groupChat_runMethod. However, it is somewhat vague about which methods can be executed, so it stops short of a 5.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools or suggest appropriate contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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

Deploy Server