Notas de uma entidade. action: list (todas as notas do tipo de entidade), list_by_entity (notas de 1 registro), create (adiciona nota; data = JSON). Tipos comuns: common, call_in, call_out, sms_in/out, attachment.
[Flattened action: list_by_entity]
Bulk support: accepts entity_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| order | No | ||
| filter | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| entity_id | No | ||
| entity_ids | No | ||
| entity_type | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, but no idempotentHint. The description doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether listing is read-only, pagination behavior, or side effects. It mentions bulk support but not details like rate limits or data format. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the action list.
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 relatively concise but includes a mix of actions (list, list_by_entity, create) that are not all relevant to the flattened action list_by_entity. The bulk support note is useful, but the structure could be clearer by focusing on the current action. It's not overly verbose, but the extraneous action list adds noise.
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 the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, pagination, filtering, or ordering. The bulk support is mentioned but not detailed. For a complex tool with many parameters, this is insufficient.
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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions `data` = JSON for create action, but for list_by_entity it doesn't explain parameters like entity_id, page, limit, order, filter, account. The description only clarifies entity_type and entity_ids, leaving most of the 9 parameters undocumented. This is a significant gap.
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 the tool lists notes for an entity, with action list_by_entity for notes of one record. It distinguishes from sibling kommo_notes_list by specifying entity-scoped listing, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling.
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 implies usage for listing notes by entity and mentions bulk support via entity_ids, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs kommo_notes_list or other note tools. It provides some context but lacks clear exclusions or alternatives.
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.