Companies do Kommo. action: list (busca paginada com filtros), get (por id), create (cria, body em data), update (atualiza; com id = 1 item, sem id = bulk com array em data).
[Flattened action: create]
Bulk support: accepts ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| ids | No | ||
| data | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| with | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| order | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| filter | No | ||
| account | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, but the description adds little about side effects. It mentions 'body em `data`' for create, which hints at the input structure, but does not disclose what happens on creation (e.g., response format, idempotency, or any side effects). The description relies on annotations without providing context beyond them, so transparency is low.
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?
The description is short but includes unnecessary content (listing all actions) that is irrelevant to the flattened create action. The structure is confusing with the bracket note and bulk support comment, making it less concise and harder to parse quickly.
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?
Given the complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, minimal annotations), this description is incomplete. It lacks information about return values, required fields, error handling, or the purpose of `ids` for bulk creation. The description does not provide enough context for an agent to use the tool safely and effectively.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters, but only `data` is mentioned as the body for create. All other parameters (id, ids, page, with, limit, order, query, filter, account) remain undefined. This does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving agents guessing about how to fill most fields.
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?
The description lists multiple actions (list, get, create, update) but then claims 'Flattened action: create', creating ambiguity about the tool's actual purpose. The title suggests create, but the description includes unrelated actions, making it vague and potentially misleading for an agent trying to select the correct tool among siblings like kommo_companies_get and kommo_companies_update.
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?
No explicit guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions multiple actions without clarifying that this tool is specifically for creating companies or when bulk mode should be used. There is no 'use this for X' or 'instead of Y' guidance, leaving the agent without clear decision criteria.
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.