Skip to main content
Glama
wuapidev

wuapi MCP server

Official
by wuapidev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Create a group

create_group

Create a WhatsApp group as the account owner, optionally inside a community, and add participants; invite codes are returned for contacts who cannot be added due to privacy settings.

Instructions

Create a WhatsApp group with the account as owner, inside a community when communityId is given. Participants whose privacy settings refuse being added get an invite code instead (see the result).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesThe group name.
accountIdYesThe wuapi account id of the linked number to act as (from list_accounts).
communityIdNoCreate the group inside this community: its group id (`...@g.us`), from list_groups (`community: true`). The account must administer it.
participantsYesContact ids to add: E.164 with + or `lid:<digits>`.
idempotencyKeyNoOptional. Reuse the same key when retrying this exact call: within 24 hours wuapi returns the first result instead of doing it twice.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.12.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / communityId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Create the group inside this community: its group id (`...@g.us`), from list_groups (`community: true`). The account must administer it.",
+  "maxLength": 200,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent write. The description adds real behavior beyond that: the calling account becomes owner, and participants whose privacy settings block being added receive an invite code instead of being added. This fallback behavior is non-obvious and usefully disclosed, though it does not cover permissions or partial-failure semantics.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler, front-loading the primary action and then the conditional community case and the invite-code fallback. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description plus annotations and fully documented parameters give an agent enough to call it correctly, and 'see the result' justifiably defers the invite-code detail to the response. Minor gaps remain around required permissions and whether the call is safe/irreversible.

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 100%, so all five parameters including idempotencyKey and communityId are already documented with strong per-field detail. The description only adds the conditional meaning of communityId ('inside a community when given'), which is marginal beyond the schema's own explanation.

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+resource ('Create a WhatsApp group') and adds meaningful scope: the account acts as owner, and the group lands inside a community when communityId is passed. It distinguishes itself from community/channel siblings implicitly, though it never names the adjacent tools (e.g. manage_community, manage_group_settings) it should not be confused with.

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 create semantics plus the conditional 'inside a community when communityId is given'. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives for existing groups or communities, so an agent must infer the boundaries from the sibling list.

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