get_groupRetrieve a WhatsApp group's name, description, settings, and participant roles by providing account and group IDs.
A group's name, description, settings and participants with their roles (member, admin, owner).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| groupId | Yes | The group id (`...@g.us`), from list_groups. | |
| accountId | Yes | The wuapi account id of the linked number to act as (from list_accounts). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful output-shape context (participants and roles), but it does not disclose error behavior, data freshness, or any other operational quirks, so its contribution is moderate.
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?
The description is a single short sentence with no filler and immediately lists the relevant returned fields. It is appropriately sized, though it is a fragment and depends on the title for the verb.
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 simple two-parameter read operation with strong annotations and no output schema, the description provides enough return-value context to call it. It could improve by clarifying what happens if the group does not exist or by pointing to list_groups for enumeration, but nothing essential is missing.
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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters already have helpful descriptions indicating where their values come from (list_groups and list_accounts). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 title supplies the verb 'Get' and the description clearly enumerates what is returned: name, description, settings, and participants with roles. It is clear this is a single-group read, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_groups or get_group_invite_link.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many group-related siblings (list_groups, create_group, get_group_invite_link), the agent must infer that this tool fetches one group's details; no explicit conditions or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.