Skip to main content
Glama
wsapi-chat

WSAPI WhatsApp MCP Server

by wsapi-chat
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

whatsapp_send_video

Send a video from base64 data or a public URL to a WhatsApp user or group with an optional caption; returns the message ID immediately.

Instructions

Send a video, from base64 data or a public URL, with an optional caption, to a user or group JID. The recipient receives it immediately. Not idempotent. Returns the message ID.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesRecipient JID
urlNoURL of the video
dataNoBase64 encoded video data
captionNoCaption for the video
replyToNoMessage ID to reply to
mentionsNo
mimeTypeNoMIME type (auto-detected if omitted)
viewOnceNoSend as view-once
isForwardedNo
replyToSenderIdNoSender JID of the replied message
ephemeralExpirationNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed20 schema fields changedv2.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / caption / description
      Previous value: -"Caption for the video (max 1024 characters)"New value: +"Caption for the video"
    • removedInput schema / properties / caption / optional
      Removed value: -true
    • addedInput schema / properties / data
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Base64 encoded video data",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / ephemeralExpiration
      Added value: +{
+  "enum": [
+    "off",
+    "24h",
+    "7d",
+    "90d"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • 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 in the caption"
    • removedInput schema / properties / mentions / optional
      Removed value: -true
    • changedInput schema / properties / mimeType / description
      Previous value: -"MIME type of the video"New value: +"MIME type (auto-detected if omitted)"
    • removedInput schema / properties / mimeType / enum
      Removed value: -[
-  "video/mp4",
-  "video/3gp",
-  "video/mov",
-  "video/avi"
-]
    • changedInput schema / properties / replyTo / description
      Previous value: -"ID of the message being replied to"New value: +"Message ID to reply to"
    • removedInput schema / properties / replyTo / optional
      Removed value: -true
    • addedInput schema / properties / replyToSenderId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Sender JID of the replied message",
+  "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 video",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / videoBase64
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Base64 encoded video data (alternative to videoURL)",
-  "optional": true,
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / videoURL
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "URL of the video to send (alternative to videoBase64)",
-  "optional": true,
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedInput schema / properties / viewOnce / description
      Previous value: -"Whether the video should be sent as view-once"New value: +"Send as view-once"
    • removedInput schema / properties / viewOnce / optional
      Removed value: -true
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "to",
-  "mimeType"
-]New value: +[
+  "to"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond that: delivery is immediate and irreversible-in-practice ('recipient receives it immediately') and the call returns a message ID, which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the send action, input forms, delivery semantics and return value are all stated compactly. Every sentence earns its place.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with annotations but no output schema, the description covers the core action, media sourcing, delivery behavior and return value well. It leaves unaddressed the mutual exclusivity of url vs data and the optional advanced parameters (mentions, viewOnce, ephemeralExpiration), which an agent may need to reason about.

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 73%, so most parameters are documented structurally, and the description adds the key semantic that the media can come from base64 'data' or a public 'url'. However, it says nothing about the remaining parameters (replyTo, mentions, viewOnce, isForwarded, ephemeralExpiration), so it only partially compensates.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (send a video) plus the two supported input forms (base64 data or public URL), which is more than the name alone gives. It stops short of naming the closest sibling (whatsapp_post_video_status) to distinguish a direct message from a status post, so an agent must infer the difference from 'to a user or group JID.'

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 recipient/URL framing, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives among the many sibling send/status tools. Nothing misleading, but nothing that steers selection either.

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