WACrew

registrar_feature

Records a delivered feature for a client to feed the dashboard delivery counter; use it when a delivery is complete and not already tracked through a PR or issue.

Instructions

Registra uma funcionalidade ENTREGUE pra um cliente (chame ao concluir uma entrega). Alimenta o contador de entregas por cliente do dashboard. Se passar ref (URL do PR/issue) e ela já estiver registrada NESTE chat, não duplica (a mesma ref em outro cliente é outra entrega). PRs mergeados que fecham issues da triagem entram sozinhos; use esta tool pro que não passou por PR.

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": {
      "grupo": "<grupo>",
      "nome": "<nome>"
    },
    "name": "registrar_feature"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ref`	No	URL do PR, issue ou commit (opcional; deduplica)
`nome`	Yes	nome curto da funcionalidade, em pt-BR
`grupo`	Yes	slug do grupo ou DM do cliente

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does most of it: it discloses the dashboard-counter side effect, the deduplication rule keyed on `ref`, and the non-obvious scoping that dedup applies only 'NESTE chat' while the same ref against another client counts as a separate delivery. It stops short of the response shape, error behavior, or whether an accidental registration can be undone — gaps that matter for a mutation 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?

It is front-loaded with the action and its trigger, then layers the side effect, the dedup rule, and the manual-vs-automatic distinction. Every sentence carries operational information — nothing is a restatement of the tool name 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 3-parameter write tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what to register, when, the dedup semantics, and the competing automatic path. What is missing is return/confirmation behavior and failure modes, which leaves a small but real gap for a mutation tool.

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 baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning beyond the schema: `ref` is explained as the dedup key whose identity is scoped to the current chat and to the client, and the schema itself only says 'opcional; deduplica'. `nome` and `grupo` get no additional semantics in the description, which is why this is not a 5.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource in caps ('Registra uma funcionalidade ENTREGUE pra um cliente') and immediately names the side effect (feeds the dashboard's per-client delivery counter), so the agent understands exactly what this writes and why it exists. It also separates this tool from the automatic path ('PRs mergeados que fecham issues da triagem entram sozinhos'), which is what would otherwise be the confusing overlap.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit trigger is given ('chame ao concluir uma entrega') plus an explicit exclusion ('use esta tool pro que não passou por PR' — merged PRs that close triage issues register themselves). Both the when and the when-not, along with the reason this tool rather than the automatic route, are stated without requiring inference.

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