Clientes (módulo de vendas recorrentes/RFM do Kommo). action: list | get | create | update. Requer o módulo de clientes ativo na conta.
[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?
With all annotation hints false and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It adds a prerequisite and bulk execution support, but does not disclose response format, error behavior, required permissions, or what happens with invalid IDs. This is helpful only at a very basic level.
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 and mostly scannable, and bulk support is clearly flagged. However, the 'action: list | get | create | update' line adds ambiguity and the '[Flattened action]' marker appears to be a generated note rather than a natural part of the description, making the structure feel a bit disjointed.
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?
For a tool with 10 parameters, no output schema, no meaningful annotations, and several closely related siblings, this description is insufficient. It identifies the resource and batch behavior but does not tell the agent enough about how to form a correct get request or interpret results.
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 there are 10 parameters. The description only clarifies that 'ids' can be used for batched execution; it does not explain 'id', 'page', 'limit', 'filter', 'order', 'with', 'query', or 'account'. Given the low coverage, the description only minimally compensates.
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 identifies the resource (Kommo customers in the recurring sales/RFM module) and includes '[Flattened action: get]', so an agent can infer this is the get variant. However, the first line says 'action: list | get | create | update', which muddies the specific operation and fails to clearly distinguish this tool from its list/create/update siblings.
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 'use this when' or 'instead use X' guidance is present. The description only mentions a module prerequisite and bulk support, but does not say when to call kommo_customers_get versus kommo_customers_list or other customer tools.
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.