Skip to main content
Glama
wuapidev

wuapi MCP server

Official
by wuapidev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Send a location

send_location

Send a map pin, with an optional place name and address.

Instructions

Send a map pin, with an optional place name and address.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesRecipient: a phone number in E.164 with + (`+584241112233`), `lid:<digits>`, the `@username` of a contact the account already chats with, a group id (`...@g.us`), or a channel id (`...@newsletter`) the account administers.
nameNoPlace name.
addressNo
latitudeYes
mentionsNoContact ids to @mention (E.164 or `lid:<digits>`).
accountIdYesThe wuapi account id of the linked number to act as (from list_accounts).
longitudeYes
idempotencyKeyNoOptional. Reuse the same key when retrying this exact call: within 24 hours wuapi returns the first result instead of doing it twice.
replyToMessageIdNoA wuapi message id in the same chat to quote (reply to). One exception, a private reply: a message someone else wrote in a group can be quoted in the direct chat with its author (`to` is that message's `from`).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.13.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / replyToMessageId / description
      Previous value: -"A wuapi message id in the same chat to quote (reply to)."New value: +"A wuapi message id in the same chat to quote (reply to). One exception, a private reply: a message someone else wrote in a group can be quoted in the direct chat with its author (`to` is that message's `from`)."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds no safety or mutability context beyond them. It says nothing about delivery behavior, rate limits, permissions, or the idempotency/quoting capabilities that the schema parameters imply.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste, but its brevity comes at the cost of omitting information rather than being crisply informative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 9-parameter tool with three undocumented params (latitude, longitude, address have no schema descriptions) and no output schema, the description does far too little to fill the gaps. An agent must fall back entirely on structured fields.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 67% and the description only echoes the schema's own wording for name and address ('optional place name and address'), adding no format, constraint, or coordinate-range meaning. Latitude/longitude are only implied by the word 'map pin'.

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 (send) and resource (a map pin / location), plus the payload fields it carries. It is clearly distinguishable from send_text, send_media, send_contact and send_poll, though it never names a sibling to sharpen that distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the location-sharing tool rather than, say, send_contact or send_text.

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