Tasks 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 provide only generic false flags, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful trait—'Bulk support: accepts ids for batched execution'—but does not explain side effects, auth requirements, return shape, or why readOnlyHint=false despite the 'get' name.
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 not concise because it spends most of its text on list, create, and update actions that do not belong in a get-focused tool. Bulk support is mentioned twice in different forms, and the '[Flattened action: get]' note adds confusion rather than clarity.
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, and weak annotations, the description is far from complete. It fails to describe response format, paging/filtering behavior for the get action, error cases, or how the batch ids parameter interacts with other fields.
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%, yet the description explains almost none of the 10 parameters. It gives minimal clues for id ('get por id') and ids ('bulk support'), but page, with, limit, order, query, filter, and account are left entirely unexplained for this tool.
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 opens with 'Tasks do Kommo' and lists list/get/create/update actions rather than stating that this specific tool retrieves tasks by ID. The 'get (por id)' phrase and '[Flattened action: get]' hint at the purpose, but the inclusion of unrelated create/update semantics makes the tool's actual behavior unclear.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use kommo_tasks_get versus kommo_tasks_list, kommo_tasks_create, or kommo_tasks_update. The description mentions 'get (por id)' and bulk ids, but the mixed action list actively obscures the intended use case instead of clarifying it.
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.