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: 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?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description isn't required to repeat safety information. It adds useful behavioral details like bulk execution via ids, and the update-without-id semantics, but it leaves 'Flattened action: get' unexplained and doesn't mention side effects or permissions.
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 inline Portuguese and a cryptic '[Flattened action: get]' note. The action list is packed into one run-on sentence, making it 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?
For a tool with 10 parameters, multiple actions, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, action-selection mechanism (how the agent decides between actions from the parameters), or what '[Flattened action: get]' means.
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 clarify parameters. It explains that 'id' selects a single item, 'data' holds the body for create/update, and 'ids' enables bulk. However, page, limit, order, with, filter, account, and query are only vaguely implied (filters) or not explained at all.
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 enumerates the actions (list, get, create, update) and the resource (Kommo leads), so it states what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like kommo_leads_create, kommo_leads_list, or kommo_leads_update, and the tool name 'get' conflicts with the multiple actions described.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the dedicated sibling tools (create/get/list/update). It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or contexts where one action should be preferred over another.
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.