Retrieves a WhatsApp user's public profile by phone number, including name, about text, picture, and business status within privacy limits. Read-only.
Get another user's public profile by phone number: name, about text, picture and business status, as far as their privacy settings allow. Read-only. Returns the profile.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| phone | Yes | Phone number (e.g. 1234567890) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by noting the privacy-settings limitation ('as far as their privacy settings allow') and that it may return partial data. It restates 'Read-only' which is redundant with the annotation, but the privacy caveat is genuinely useful behavioral disclosure.
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?
The description is a single sentence plus two fragments ('Read-only. Returns the profile.'). The fragments are somewhat redundant with annotations and the opening sentence. The core info is front-loaded and clear, but the fragment structure feels slightly disorganized.
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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers what is returned and the privacy constraint. It does not explain error cases (e.g., unknown number) or whether it requires the user to be a contact, but it is largely sufficient for correct invocation.
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 'phone' parameter is documented with an example in the schema. The description adds that the lookup is by phone number, aligning with the schema but not extending it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents the parameter.
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 ('Get another user's public profile') and enumerates the returned fields (name, about text, picture, business status). It is clearly distinct from whatsapp_get_my_profile and whatsapp_get_chat_business_profile because it targets another user via phone number.
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 description implies the use case (fetching a stranger's public profile by phone number) but does not explicitly state when to use this versus siblings like whatsapp_get_contact or whatsapp_check_user. Usage is inferable but not guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.