Re-publish cached WhatsApp history sync messages as events for this instance. Returns an acknowledgement; messages arrive later through the event stream.
Re-publish the history sync messages cached for this instance as events. It does not return messages: they arrive later through the event stream. Returns an acknowledgement.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations covering the safety profile (non-read-only but non-destructive and idempotent), the description adds genuinely useful behavior: the messages are not returned and instead are emitted asynchronously to the event stream, and the call only yields an acknowledgement. This materially shapes how an agent must consume the result.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: the action, the asynchronous delivery caveat, and the return shape. The critical caveat is front-loaded ahead of the return detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is nearly self-sufficient: it explains the side effect, the asynchronous delivery channel, and the acknowledgement return. It could go further by relating to the history-sync lifecycle, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is required; nothing is lost by the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Re-publish the history sync messages cached for this instance as events'), which is unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from the send/get/update siblings by nature of the operation, though it never names a sibling to contrast against.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use or when-not guidance is given. The sentence about messages arriving through the event stream hints at the calling context but never states the condition under which an agent should invoke this versus requesting messages directly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.