Skip to main content
Glama
wsapi-chat

WSAPI WhatsApp MCP Server

by wsapi-chat
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

whatsapp_send_reaction

Idempotent

React to a WhatsApp message with an emoji or remove this number's reaction by sending an empty string; everyone in the chat sees it and repeating replaces the reaction.

Instructions

React to a message with an emoji, or remove this number's reaction by sending an empty string. Everyone in the chat sees it. Repeating it replaces the reaction. Returns a success confirmation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesChat JID
reactionYesEmoji reaction (empty string to remove)
senderIdNoSender of the original message (for groups)
messageIdYesID of the message to react to

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv2.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / reaction / description
      Previous value: -"Emoji reaction to send (max 10 characters)"New value: +"Emoji reaction (empty string to remove)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / senderId / description
      Previous value: -"ID of the original message sender"New value: +"Sender of the original message (for groups)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / to / description
      Previous value: -"Chat ID where the message is located"New value: +"Chat JID"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "messageId",
-  "to",
-  "senderId",
-  "reaction"
-]New value: +[
+  "messageId",
+  "to",
+  "reaction"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: visibility ('everyone in the chat sees it'), replace semantics ('repeating it replaces the reaction', consistent with idempotentHint=true), and the return shape. It doesn't mention auth/permission requirements, but the annotation set already covers the safety profile.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the removal mechanism, and the visibility/timing/return facts. Front-loaded with the primary purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 4-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the two operating modes, visibility, replacement behavior, and return confirmation. Parameter specifics like the group-only senderId are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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 all four parameters (including the group-specific senderId) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the empty-string removal convention already present in the schema, adding no new parameter meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (react to a message with an emoji) plus the explicit inverse operation (remove reaction via empty string). No sibling tool covers reactions, so the agent can identify it uniquely.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Clearly explains both modes of use: supply an emoji to react, or an empty string to remove. Since no alternative reaction tool exists, the absence of an explicit alternatives clause is minor, but it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools