Leads 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?
The annotations already signal that this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds only that the body is in `data` and that ids are accepted for bulk execution. It does not disclose required authentication, return behavior, or what happens on partial bulk failure, so the behavioral context remains thin.
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 cluttered with irrelevant action variants (list/get/update) that do not belong in a create-specific tool. It mixes Portuguese and English and uses an odd '[Flattened action: create]' marker, making the structure more confusing than helpful.
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 create operation with no output schema, no required parameters, and no parameter descriptions, the description should explain required payload structure, response behavior, and bulk semantics. It provides only a minimal 'body em data' note and an unexplained bulk-support sentence, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 coverage, the description carries the full burden, but it only explains `data` (body) and vaguely mentions `ids` for bulk execution. The remaining parameters like `query`, `filter`, `page`, `with`, `limit`, `order`, and `account` are left completely unexplained, and it is unclear which ones even apply to the flattened create action.
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 does state 'create (cria, body em `data`)' and the tool name is kommo_leads_create, so the core purpose is identifiable. However, it also lists list/get/update actions, creating ambiguity about what this specific tool actually does versus its 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 clear guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of kommo_leads_get, kommo_leads_list, or kommo_leads_update. The mention of bulk support is the only contextual hint, but it does not explain when bulk execution is appropriate or how it differs from single-create.
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.