Contacts 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: get]
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?
The description implies a read operation ('get'), but annotations state readOnlyHint=false, indicating it is not read-only. This is a direct contradiction. Additionally, the description does not disclose any side effects or safety details, and the bulk execution behavior is under-specified.
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 wastes space listing actions for other tools (list, create, update) and then retracts to 'Flattened action: get'. It is not concise or front-loaded, and the structure is confusing due to mixed Portuguese and English.
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 10 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It provides no information about return format, pagination behavior, filtering syntax, or error handling. The bulk support is mentioned but not elaborated.
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 10 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It only mentions 'id' for get and 'ids' for bulk, leaving page, limit, query, filter, with, order, account entirely unexplained. This does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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) and then clarifies 'Flattened action: get', which is confusing. The tool name itself indicates 'get', but the description does not explicitly state what it does beyond 'Contacts do Kommo' and a convoluted action list. It fails to clearly specify that this tool retrieves a contact by ID or bulk via IDs.
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?
It mentions that 'get' is by id and that bulk support accepts ids, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like kommo_contacts_list. There is no clear statement of use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from sibling names.
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.