WACrew: WhatsApp AI automation

agenda_marcar

Creates Google Calendar events from confirmed dates, times, and details, adding guests only when requested and approved so invitations are sent intentionally.

Instructions

Cria um evento no Google Agenda do operador. Marque só o que foi combinado de fato (data e hora claras) ou o que o operador pediu. CONVIDADOS: o Google manda e-mail de convite na hora. Só inclua convidados quando o operador pedir, e antes mostre a ele o evento (título, quando, quem) e espere o OK. Sem convidados, ninguém recebe nada. Devolve o evento criado com id, agenda, hora_brt, link e o link do Meet.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "titulo": "<titulo>",
      "inicio": "<inicio>"
    },
    "name": "agenda_marcar"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`fim`	No	fim; sem ele vale duracao_min
`meet`	No	true = cria link do Google Meet
`local`	No
`agenda`	No	id da agenda; padrão a principal
`inicio`	Yes	data-hora ISO (sem fuso = Brasília) ou YYYY-MM-DD com dia_inteiro
`titulo`	Yes	título do evento
`descricao`	No
`convidados`	No	e-mails; o Google manda convite por e-mail
`dia_inteiro`	No	true = evento de dia inteiro
`duracao_min`	No	duração em minutos quando não há fim; padrão 30

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it warns that Google sends the invite e-mail immediately upon guest inclusion, that with no guests nobody is notified, and that a confirmation preview is required before inviting. It also lists the returned fields (id, agenda, hora_brt, link, Meet link). It does not cover failure modes, conflicts, or which calendar is targeted by default beyond what the schema states.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the guest-invite rules follow in a scannable sequence with labeled emphasis ('CONVIDADOS:'). Sentences are dense but each carries a distinct rule; only minor tightening is possible.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting: it states the side effect (invite e-mails), the confirmation workflow, and the return payload shape. The remaining gap is scheduling edge cases (conflicts, recurring events, default calendar behaviour) that the schema only partially covers.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds real meaning only for convidados (Google sends the invite by e-mail), which the schema actually also states. The remaining parameters gain no new semantics from the description, so the baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Cria um evento no Google Agenda do operador.' The verb 'Cria' implicitly separates it from siblings like agenda_editar and agenda_apagar, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives explicit conditions for when to book ('só o que foi combinado de fato (data e hora claras) ou o que o operador pediu') and a precise when-to-include-guests rule requiring the operator's OK first. What's missing is any reference to the alternative tools (agenda_editar, agenda_apagar) for the case where an event already exists.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.