WACrew

status_envio

Track the status of a humanized WhatsApp delivery by chat group or ticket and return its state, reason, sent/total balloons, and estimated delivery time.

Instructions

Estado de uma entrega humanizada: por chat (grupo) ou por ticket. Devolve estado (agendado/entregando/entregue/cancelado/interrompido), motivo, balões enviados/total e previsão.

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": "status_envio"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`grupo`	No	slug, nome exato ou jid
`ticket`	No	id do ticket devolvido pelo responder

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description does real work by enumerating the returned state values (agendado/entregando/entregue/cancelado/interrompido) and the extra fields (motivo, balões enviados/total, previsão). It does not state that it is read-only, nor what happens if the delivery is not found, but it discloses the return shape well enough to compensate.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with the resource and addressing modes front-loaded and the return contract following. Efficient, though the return enumeration is dense and slightly jargon-heavy ('balões enviados/total').

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description supplies the return values an agent needs, and both input parameters are covered by the schema. The main omission is guidance on parameter choice and error/not-found behavior, which is minor for a simple status query.

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 100%, so both parameters are self-documented there. The description adds the useful nuance that grupo and ticket are alternative addressing methods, but no format detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific resource and action: reporting the status ('estado') of a 'entrega humanizada' addressed either by chat (grupo) or ticket. This clearly distinguishes it from write-oriented siblings like cancelar_envio or agenda_editar, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of prerequisites. The phrase 'por chat (grupo) ou por ticket' hints at the two addressing paths but stops short of telling the agent which to choose or when this tool is preferable to a sibling.

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