Retrieve WhatsApp group details by JID, including name, description, settings, and participants. Read-only operation returning the group object.
Get the details of a group by JID: name, description, settings and participants. Read-only. Returns the group object.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Group JID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Input schema / properties / groupIdRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Group ID (with @g.us)",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Group JID",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "groupId"
-]New value: +[
+ "id"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description's 'Read-only' simply restates that. It does add the useful fact that the call returns a group object containing settings and participants, but discloses no auth, rate-limit, or failure behavior.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the returned fields. Minor redundancy in the 'Read-only' sentence, which duplicates the annotation, but there is no padding.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is essentially complete: it says what it fetches and what comes back. A bit more on failure modes or JID format would make it fully self-sufficient.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is already documented as 'Group JID' in the schema. The description's 'by JID' adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Get') and resource ('details of a group') and enumerates the returned fields (name, description, settings, participants), so it is distinguishable from sibling listing tools like whatsapp_get_groups. It does not explicitly name a sibling, 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'by JID' implies the lookup context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives such as whatsapp_get_group_info_from_link or whatsapp_get_groups. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.