WAHA MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, with no overlapping purposes. Message, group, chat, contact, and session operations are clearly separated.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow the same waha_ verb_noun snake_case pattern, such as send_image, create_group, and get_contact_about. There are no stylistic deviations or mixed conventions.
Tool Count4/5
At 21 tools, the set is slightly above the typical 3-15 range but each operation is distinct and earns its place in a full WhatsApp automation server. The count feels reasonable given the breadth of session, chat, message, contact, and group management.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers all major WhatsApp workflows: messaging, media sending, message reactions, group CRUD, participant management, contact lookup, and profile retrieval. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no mark-as-read, no session start/stop), but these are not critical dead ends for typical automation tasks.
Average 3.2/5 across 21 of 21 tools scored. Lowest: 2.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the basic operation, omitting side effects, permissions, duplicate handling, and error scenarios. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler, which is efficient. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, missing opportunities to add useful context about parameters or usage.
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?
The tool has two required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does not cover return values, prerequisites, edge cases, or behavioral expectations, making it inadequate for reliable agent invocation despite the tool's apparent simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters groupId and participants beyond what the schema already provides. It adds no semantic meaning about formats, relationships, or constraints, failing to compensate for the low coverage.
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?
The description clearly states the action (add) and the resource (participants to a group), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like waha_remove_group_participants, though the add/remove distinction is implicit from the name.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as removing participants or creating a group. It neither lists prerequisites nor provides exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selecting this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether deletion is permanent, whether it applies to the recipient's side, permission requirements, or what happens on failure. This is a total absence of behavioral context.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it may be too terse to be fully useful given the lack of other context.
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?
The tool is simple (two string parameters) but the description is incomplete: it does not mention deletion scope (e.g., delete for me vs. everyone), return behavior, or edge cases. The absence of an output schema and annotations makes the description's brevity a significant gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning to the parameters chatId and messageId. The agent is left to infer that chatId identifies the chat and messageId identifies the message, but the description does not confirm or clarify this, nor does it mention any required formats.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a message' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like send, react, or star. It unambiguously states the tool's core action.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any prerequisites, exclusions, or context in which deletion is appropriate. The description offers no comparative or situational advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for disclosing side effects, permissions, or error behavior. It only describes the removal action, omitting any behavioral details such as whether the group must exist, admin requirements, or what happens if a participant is not in the group.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that clearly conveys the primary purpose. It is not overly verbose, though it could benefit from additional context without losing conciseness.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks information on return values, error conditions, and required permissions, making it incomplete for safe and correct invocation by an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters beyond their names. 'groupId' and 'participants' are self-explanatory at a basic level, but the description offers no additional context about expected formats (e.g., phone numbers, IDs) or constraints, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('Remove participants') and a resource ('group'), distinguishing it from sibling tools, particularly 'waha_add_group_participants'. The verb+resource structure is specific and unambiguous.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It merely states the action without context for an agent to decide between this and other group management tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' but does not disclose pagination behavior, return format, or whether archived chats are included. Minimal context beyond the obvious.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what a chat object looks like, how pagination works, or any usage context. Sibling tools and parameters are not referenced.
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?
The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for limit and offset. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get list of chats' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like waha_get_messages and waha_get_groups, though it lacks any additional scope or context.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_groups or get_messages. There are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and does not mention potential side effects (e.g., whether an existing reaction is replaced), permission requirements, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise for such a simple tool, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain when to use the tool, what the tool actually does to the message, or any relevant limitations. The schema covers basic parameters but not usage context, leaving the description incomplete.
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 description coverage is only 50%: the 'reaction' parameter is documented, but 'messageId' has no description. The tool description does not compensate for this gap, leaving the role of messageId implied rather than explicit. It does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'React' with a resource 'a message' and the result 'with an emoji', making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like waha_star_message or waha_send_text, as no other tool performs reactions.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states the action without contextualizing it within the broader message-management workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Set' implying a mutation, but it does not mention side effects, permissions, or whether the description is overwritten. No behavioral context beyond the action itself.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It is appropriately concise for the simple operation it describes.
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?
The description is too sparse to be complete. With no annotations and no schema descriptions, the tool lacks essential context about when to use it, what the parameters mean, and what behavioral outcomes to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no additional meaning for the parameters. It does not explain what groupId represents or what format/content description expects, leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and the target resource ('group description'), making it unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like waha_set_group_subject by explicitly targeting 'description' rather than 'subject'.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or differences from similar tools like waha_set_group_subject.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only that the tool retrieves a value, but gives no information about error handling, return format, authentication requirements, or side effects. For a read operation, this is minimal and lacks crucial details an agent needs.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that communicates the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words or fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter and front-loads the main information.
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?
With no output schema, the description should explain the return value and any error behavior. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent guessing about the response structure, null handling, or prerequisites. The description is insufficiently complete for a one-parameter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides no description for contactId, and the tool description does not explain the expected format or meaning of the parameter. With 0% schema coverage and no compensation from the description, the agent has no information to construct a valid call.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the specific resource ('the 'About' status of a contact'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like waha_get_contact, which presumably returns full contact details. The purpose is unambiguous and well-scoped.
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?
The description implies usage when the About status is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as waha_get_contact. There is no mention of exclusions or context, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action without revealing side effects. It does not mention that leaving a group is irreversible, requires the current session to be a member, or what happens to group membership. This is insufficient for a mutation operation.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is still incomplete. It lacks behavioral context, such as how the current session is affected, error conditions, or return values. While the action is clear, an agent would not know the full implications of invoking this tool.
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?
The input schema has one required string parameter 'groupId', but schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not elaborate on the format or meaning of 'groupId', though the name is somewhat self-explanatory. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level documentation, adding no extra semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Leave a WhatsApp group' clearly states the verb ('Leave') and the resource ('WhatsApp group'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_group' or 'add_group_participants' by focusing on the action of leaving.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., being a member of the group), exclusions, or comparison with related tools like 'remove_group_participants' (which removes others) or 'delete_group' (if it existed). The intended use case is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the action without detailing side effects, delivery confirmations, rate limits, error behavior, or what happens if the chatId is invalid. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the name.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It is concise and to the point, though it might be considered too sparse for some users. Overall, it is appropriately sized for a simple send action.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about prerequisites, return values, or error handling. It does not. The tool is simple (3 params), but the description is too shallow to be considered complete, leaving the agent without crucial guidance on invocation edge cases.
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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already described (chatId, text, replyTo). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies. No additional parameter meaning is provided in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Send a text message to a WhatsApp chat' clearly identifies the verb (send), the resource (a text message to a WhatsApp chat), and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like waha_send_image and waha_send_file by specifying 'text'. It is specific and unambiguous.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It does not mention chat state requirements, authentication, or scenarios where other send tools would be appropriate. Usage context is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the core state change (star/unstar) but does not mention idempotency, error behavior, permission requirements, or what happens when the message is not found. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and fails to give sufficient behavioral context beyond the primary effect.
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?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and immediately communicates the operation, exemplifying conciseness without sacrificing clarity.
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?
The tool is fairly simple, but the description is minimal. It does not explain what starring means in the context of WhatsApp (e.g., marking a message as important), what the return value might be, or any side effects. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should have provided more context, but it provides almost none.
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?
The star parameter is described in the schema (true to star, false to unstar), but chatId and messageId have no schema descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning for these parameters, and with only 33% schema coverage, it does not compensate for the missing details. The agent must rely on generic naming conventions to infer their meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (star/unstar) and the target (a message), using a specific verb+resource structure. It is distinct from all sibling tools, which deal with sending, deleting, reacting, or group management, none of which cover starring.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context about prerequisites, and no explicit exclusions. It simply states the action without any situational advice, so the agent has to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('create') but does not describe side effects, required permissions, failure modes, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with only two parameters and is well-structured for quick scanning.
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?
Given the tool's mutation nature, lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is overly minimal. It does not explain what happens on success, what errors may occur, or what prerequisites must be met, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
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?
The input schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters (name and participants), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new WhatsApp group' uses a specific verb (create) and resource (WhatsApp group), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is distinct from sibling tools like waha_add_group_participants or waha_set_group_subject, which operate on existing groups.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., active session, valid participant IDs), exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action, but does not mention side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or error behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool, leaving the agent without crucial information about what to expect when invoking it.
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?
The description is a single, short sentence with no filler words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. However, it is slightly too terse, omitting any contextual details that could be included without bloating it. Still, it is appropriately sized for a simple setter tool.
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?
The tool is a simple mutation with two parameters and no output schema, but the description is far from complete. It does not explain what happens on success (e.g., success message, updated group object), failure modes, or whether the group must exist. Combined with absent annotations and partial parameter descriptions, this leaves the agent without sufficient context to fully understand the tool's consequences.
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 50%: only the 'subject' parameter has a description. The description repeats 'subject' without adding detail, and it does nothing to clarify the meaning of 'groupId' or the expected format/behavior of the parameters. The description adds marginal value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set the group name/subject' clearly states the action (set) and the resource (group name/subject), distinguishing it from sibling tools like waha_set_group_description and waha_create_group. It is specific and unambiguous about the tool's core function.
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?
The description implies usage when you want to rename a group's subject, but it provides no explicit context about when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites such as group existence or required permissions. It is not misleading, but offers no exclusionary guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only mentions 'via URL' without disclosing that the file is fetched from the URL, potential size limits, URL accessibility requirements, or any side effects. For a write operation, this is insufficient.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the simple purpose it conveys.
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?
Given 5 parameters (4 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It lacks prerequisites (e.g., URL accessibility), return value expectations, or error handling, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture.
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 description coverage is 60%, covering url, filename, and mimetype. The description adds only 'via URL' to clarify the url parameter. It does not explain chatId format or caption usage, leaving gaps that the description should compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Send'), the resource ('a file/document'), and the channel ('WhatsApp chat via URL'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like waha_send_text and waha_send_image by specifying 'file/document' and 'via URL'.
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?
The purpose implies usage: use this to send a file via URL. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives mentioned, and no exclusions for image-specific tools. The intent is clear from the description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only says 'Get messages from a chat' and does not detail side effects, media handling, pagination, or read receipts. The description offers minimal transparency beyond the basic read operation.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence ('Get messages from a chat') with no filler words. It front-loads the action and every word earns its place, achieving high conciseness.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description does not explain return formats, chatId format, message types, or filtering options. Although the schema provides some parameter details, the overall completeness is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior without additional context.
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?
The schema already describes 67% of parameters (limit, downloadMedia) with defaults, and the description adds no parameter-specific information. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description provides no additional semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('messages from a chat'). It is distinct from sibling tools like waha_get_chats or waha_send_text, making its purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description implies its usage (retrieval of messages) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer this over waha_get_chats or other related tools, leaving the context inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('check') which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, error behavior), whether it requires an active session, or any edge cases like invalid numbers. The description is minimal but not misleading.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that gets straight to the point. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no redundant words or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple check tool, the description is minimally adequate but not fully complete. Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify the return format or possible outcomes, which it does not. It also omits context about session requirements or error handling, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke with full confidence.
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?
The input schema already covers the single parameter 'phone' with a clear description and an example. The tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameter, so it relies on the schema. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Check if a phone number has a WhatsApp account.' It uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('phone number') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like waha_get_contact or waha_get_contact_about, which retrieve detailed contact information rather than just existence.
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?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies a use case (verifying WhatsApp existence) but does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives such as waha_get_contact or waha_send_text. This leaves the agent to infer appropriate use from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'get details' and does not disclose what details are returned, error behavior, or any side effects. Minimal behavioral transparency beyond the basic action.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that gets straight to the point with no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter, but the description lacks specifics about the returned details. Since there is no output schema, the description should offer more context about what 'details' includes, which would help an agent determine if this tool fits the task.
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?
The schema fully describes the only parameter (groupId), providing a format example. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'details of a specific group', distinguishing it from sibling tools like waha_get_groups which lists groups.
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?
The usage is implied: use this to get details for a specific group. However, no explicit guidance is given on when to choose this over alternatives like waha_get_groups or waha_create_group.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List all WAHA sessions', but does not clarify whether authentication is needed, what fields are returned, or if pagination/filtering applies. For an unannotated tool, this is insufficient.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple parameterless list operation, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not explain what a 'session' encompasses or what the return format will be. Since there is no output schema, the description should have provided at least a high-level indication of the returned data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description naturally adds no parameter details, but none are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'WAHA sessions', making the tool's function immediately obvious. It also naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools which focus on sending, deleting, or managing other entities.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this list operation would be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (sending an image) but does not disclose side effects, permissions, blocking behavior, or return values. This is a mutation tool with minimal transparency, similar to the update_drive example.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose and input method. It contains zero waste and is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally sufficient. It clearly states the action and primary input methods, but does not address what the agent should expect as a response or any prerequisites. It is adequate but lacks depth for a complete picture.
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?
The schema description coverage is high (83%), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides—it only mirrors the 'url OR base64' distinction already present in parameter descriptions. Thus, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Send') and a clear resource ('an image to a WhatsApp chat'), which perfectly distinguishes this tool from siblings like waha_send_text and waha_send_file. The scope is explicit and concise.
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?
The phrase 'via URL or base64' implies the primary usage scenarios, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over waha_send_file or provide exclusion criteria. There is no mention of alternatives, so guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The verb 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not explicitly confirm safety, explain what happens when the contact ID is invalid, or mention any authentication/rate-limit requirements. This leaves important operational behavior undisclosed.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It contains no filler or redundant information, earning a perfect score for conciseness.
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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient: it states what action is performed and the parameter is fully documented in the schema. However, it could slightly improve by noting the return format or error behavior, but overall it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.
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?
The input schema provides 100% coverage for contactId, including an example. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('contact info'), and the filter ('by contact ID'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like waha_get_contact_about (which retrieves 'about' text) and waha_check_number_exists (which checks number existence), making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description implies usage for retrieving contact info by ID, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., waha_get_contact_about). It lacks exclusions or alternative recommendations, so the agent must infer the use case from the tool name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing return format, potential side effects, or authentication requirements. While a 'get' is likely read-only, it is not explicitly stated.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary detail. It is front-loaded and every word is essential.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is very simple with no parameters and trivial invocation, so the description is adequate for calling the tool. However, the lack of an output schema means the description should ideally clarify what 'profile' includes (e.g., name, phone number), which is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per the baseline, a 4 is appropriate since there is no parameter semantic burden for the description to carry.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('profile of the logged-in WhatsApp account'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_contact or get_groups. It precisely identifies the target as the authenticated user's own profile.
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?
The usage is implied through the description, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion examples. For example, it doesn't clarify that get_contact should be used for other users' profiles.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It describes the action ('List') and scope ('session account is in'), implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose return format, any potential side effects, or permission requirements. The lack of an output schema means the agent is left guessing about the structure of the returned data.
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?
The description is a single sentence of nine words, front-loaded with the verb 'List' and the resource 'groups'. Every word contributes to meaning, with no redundancy or filler.
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 tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description is adequately complete: it states that it lists all groups for the session account. However, it could be more complete by mentioning what a 'group' includes (e.g., metadata, participants) or whether an empty list is possible, but the low complexity keeps the bar modest.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. Per the rubric, 0 params sets a baseline of 4 because there is no parameter information to clarify. The description adds nothing about parameters since none exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List all groups') and resource ('groups'), with a specific scope ('the session account is in'). This distinguishes it from siblings like waha_get_group (singular) and waha_get_chats by emphasizing 'all' and 'session account'.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative comparisons are given, but the phrase 'List all groups' implies the tool is for retrieving a complete list rather than a single group. Sibling tools like waha_get_group and waha_get_chats exist, but the description doesn't mention them or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![waha-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yusufekorman/waha-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yusufekorman/waha-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![waha-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yusufekorman/waha-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yusufekorman/waha-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/yusufekorman/waha-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server