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: update]
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 description discloses that it can perform bulk updates and explains the use of `id` vs bulk mode. It does not contradict the annotations (no read-only or destructive hints are set). However, it lacks details on side effects, error conditions, or required permissions, which would be useful given the minimal annotation coverage.
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 front-loaded with the action. However, it includes a redundant list of all actions (list, get, create, update) before the 'Flattened action: update' clarification, which adds minor noise. It is still efficient but could be more focused.
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?
The tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations. The description does not explain the purpose of most parameters, what the `data` body should contain, the expected response, or any prerequisites. It is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool beyond the simplest single-update case.
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?
The schema has 10 parameters with 0% coverage from the description. The description explains the role of `id`, `ids`, and `data` (e.g., 'com `id` = 1 item, sem `id` = bulk com array em `data`'), but the other parameters (page, with, limit, order, query, filter, account) are not explained at all. Since schema coverage is zero, the description only partially 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 clearly states this tool updates tasks ('update (atualiza...') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, get, and list. It also clarifies bulk vs single-item update, which is specific and unambiguous.
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?
It provides clear guidance on when to use `id` for a single update and when to omit `id` for bulk updates using an array in `data`. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for creating tasks) or mention alternatives, though the action name and context make this implicit.
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.