WACrew

ler_notas

Retrieve WhatsApp group notes by passing a group slug for one group or omitting it to read notes across all groups.

Instructions

Lê as notas dos grupos. Com 'grupo', traz só a dele; sem, traz todas.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "ler_notas"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`grupo`	No	slug para restringir a um grupo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. "Lê" implies a safe read and the with/without-parameter behavior is disclosed, but nothing is said about ordering, volume/pagination, permissions, or what the returned notes look like. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by the parameter's effect. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 single optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is nearly sufficient: purpose and default scope are both covered. Only the shape/volume of returned notes is left unstated, a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'grupo' slug. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by stating the default behavior when the parameter is omitted (returns all group notes), which the schema does not convey.

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 gives a specific verb+resource combination ("Lê as notas dos grupos" – reads group notes), which is distinct from sibling readers such as ler_documento and ler_mensagens. It does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, 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 clearly states the two invocation modes: pass 'grupo' to get only that group's notes, omit it to get all notes. That is real operational guidance, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over the other read tools, nor any exclusions.

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