MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.): log in in the browser, copy the access token. Best: add it to this server's config as a header Authorization: Bearer <token> for a permanent, non-expiring connection. Or paste it here for a session-only login: call with { token: "" } after the user pastes, or with no args to get the link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations beyond idempotentHint=true, which matches (calling with same token is idempotent). Description explains side effects: browser login, access token, session-only vs permanent connection. Adds value beyond annotations by clarifying the token flow and configuration alternative.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with dense info, front-loaded with purpose and audience. Slightly flippant tone, but every part adds value. Could be split into clearer steps, but efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 1 param, no output schema, and idempotent annotation, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects. Explains both usage modes and the recommended permanent config approach. Good enough for a simple auth tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has one 'token' param with 0% description coverage, but the description explains its meaning: JWT token to be pasted after user provides it. Also clarifies that calling without args returns a link. Adequately compensates for schema's lack.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear purpose: authenticate user, login via browser or token. Distinguishes from siblings like 'connect' and 'kommo_list_accounts' by focusing on auth. Title and description align. Could be more explicit about being the auth entry point.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit when-to-use and how: with no args to get login link, or with token for session login. Also recommends permanent config-based token. Contrasts with session-only option, guiding agent on best practices.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools follow a clear entity+action naming scheme, so leads_create, leads_get, etc. are easy to tell apart despite the repeated template in descriptions. Minor ambiguity exists between account and list_accounts, and the generic request tool may be confused with any specialized endpoint.
The dominant pattern kommo_<entity>_<action> is consistently used across most CRUD tools. Deviations like list_accounts, custom_fields, events, and request break the pattern but are still understandable and not chaotic.
48 tools is excessive for a CRM server, even with a large resource surface. Most of the count comes from flattened CRUD actions, which could have been consolidated into fewer, richer tools without losing clarity.
The toolset covers many core Kommo resources: leads, contacts, companies, customer, tasks, notes, pipelines, users, and conversations. However, deletes are missing for most entities, and several resources are read/list-only; the raw request tool fills some of these gaps but is not a first-class substitute.