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: list]
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 indicate non-readOnly, non-destructive, but description doesn't add meaningful behavioral context. It mentions 'paginada com filtros' but not what the response contains, or side effects. Since annotations are sparse, description should carry more weight but fails to.
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?
Description is short but includes a lot of mixed information (multi-action overview and bulk support) that may be irrelevant to the list action. The 'Bulk support' line is generic and not specific to list. Front-loading is acceptable but could be more focused.
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 zero schema coverage, no output schema, and 10 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the list returns, how filters work, or how pagination is done. Sibling tools provide contrast, but description fails to position this tool adequately.
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 description coverage is 0%, and description provides no parameter details beyond 'list (busca paginada com filtros)'. Parameters like page, limit, filter, query are listed but their semantics are unexplained. Description should compensate for low schema coverage but doesn't.
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 clearly states this is a 'list' action for companies with pagination and filters. It distinguishes from sibling tools like kommo_companies_get and kommo_companies_create by specifying the action and parameters. However, it's part of a flattened multi-action description, which slightly muddies the clarity.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives beyond the action label. It mentions 'list' but doesn't explain what filters are available or when to use this over kommo_companies_get. Lacks context on prerequisites or typical scenarios.
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.