Unblock a blocked WhatsApp contact to restore their ability to message and call your number. Returns a success confirmation when the contact is unblocked.
Unblock a previously blocked contact, so they can message and call this number again. Returns a success confirmation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Contact JID to unblock |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world. The description goes beyond them by describing the observable outcome (contact can message and call again) and the response shape ('Returns a success confirmation'), which is valuable since no output schema exists.
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 action and its effect, with no redundant or filler content.
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 one-parameter mutation with full annotation coverage, the description is nearly complete; it even covers the return value in lieu of an output schema. Only the failure case (e.g., unblocking a non-blocked contact) and any auth/session prerequisites are unstated.
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 documented as 'Contact JID to unblock', so the schema carries the meaning. The description adds no format or sourcing guidance for the JID beyond the schema.
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?
The description states a specific verb+resource (unblock a contact) and spells out the concrete effect: the contact can message and call again. It is unambiguously the inverse of the sibling whatsapp_block_contact, though it never names or contrasts that sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied by 'previously blocked contact', but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to the counterpart whatsapp_block_contact or to any prerequisite (e.g., that the contact must actually be blocked).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.