Skip to main content
Glama
wsapi-chat

WSAPI WhatsApp MCP Server

by wsapi-chat
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

whatsapp_send_sticker

Send a WebP sticker to a WhatsApp contact or group via base64 data or a public URL; returns the message ID.

Instructions

Send a sticker in WebP format, from base64 data or a public URL. Not idempotent. Returns the message ID.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesRecipient JID
urlNoURL of the sticker
dataNoBase64 encoded sticker data
replyToNo
mentionsNo
isAnimatedNoWhether the sticker is animated
isForwardedNo
replyToSenderIdNo
ephemeralExpirationNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed16 schema fields changedv2.0.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / data
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Base64 encoded sticker data",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / ephemeralExpiration
      Added value: +{
+  "enum": [
+    "off",
+    "24h",
+    "7d",
+    "90d"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / isAnimated / optional
      Removed value: -true
    • removedInput schema / properties / isForwarded / description
      Removed value: -"Whether the message should be marked as forwarded"
    • removedInput schema / properties / isForwarded / optional
      Removed value: -true
    • removedInput schema / properties / mentions / description
      Removed value: -"List of phone numbers to mention"
    • removedInput schema / properties / mentions / optional
      Removed value: -true
    • removedInput schema / properties / mimeType
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "MIME type of the sticker (must be image/webp)",
-  "enum": [
-    "image/webp"
-  ],
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / replyTo / description
      Removed value: -"ID of the message being replied to"
    • removedInput schema / properties / replyTo / optional
      Removed value: -true
    • addedInput schema / properties / replyToSenderId
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / stickerBase64
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Base64 encoded sticker data (alternative to stickerURL)",
-  "optional": true,
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / stickerURL
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "URL of the sticker to send (alternative to stickerBase64)",
-  "optional": true,
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedInput schema / properties / to / description
      Previous value: -"Recipient phone number (with @s.whatsapp.net) or group ID (with @g.us)"New value: +"Recipient JID"
    • addedInput schema / properties / url
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "URL of the sticker",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "to",
-  "mimeType"
-]New value: +[
+  "to"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare non-idempotent, non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful facts: the WebP format requirement and that the message ID is returned (valuable since there is no output schema), but omits size limits, rate limits, or failure modes.

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 compact sentences with no filler; the core action, format constraint, and return value are all front-loaded.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 9-parameter tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers the essential send path and mentions the return value. It stops short of documenting the reply/mention/ephemeral parameters, leaving gaps for an agent composing a full request.

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 coverage is only 44%, with replyTo, mentions, isForwarded, replyToSenderId, and ephemeralExpiration undocumented. The description compensates partially by explaining that 'url' and 'data' are alternative sticker sources, but several parameters remain opaque in both the schema and the description.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Send a sticker'), the required media format (WebP), and the two accepted sources (base64 data or public URL). It does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings like whatsapp_send_image or whatsapp_send_document, relying on the name alone to draw the line.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the tool name and format constraint, and the description clarifies the two input modes (base64 vs URL). However there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over whatsapp_send_image, nor any prerequisites such as size limits or account requirements.

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