get_group_invite_linkRetrieve a WhatsApp group's chat invite link using account ID and group ID. Admin privileges required.
The group's https://chat.whatsapp.com/... invite link. The account must be an admin.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the admin permission requirement and states the return value format, which are not in annotations. This is useful context beyond structured fields, though it doesn't describe error behavior or edge cases.
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 sentences with no waste. The first sentence states the purpose and output format, the second states the key prerequisite. The critical admin requirement is front-loaded after the main purpose. Every word earns its place.
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 read-only getter with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential details: what is returned and the admin requirement. It doesn't mention what happens if the account is not admin or provide error handling, but for a low-complexity tool, this is sufficient. The output format is explicitly stated, compensating for the missing output schema.
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 both parameters (accountId and groupId) are fully documented with descriptions referencing source lists. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 applies since the schema handles parameter documentation.
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 clearly states the verb (get) and resource (group's invite link), and specifies the output format (the https://chat.whatsapp.com/... link). It is distinct from reset_group_invite_link and get_invitation, though it doesn't explicitly call out those siblings. The purpose is unambiguous.
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?
It gives one clear prerequisite: the account must be an admin. However, it doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, such as when to prefer reset_group_invite_link or get_invitation. The usage context is partially implied but not explicit about exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.