Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kommo CRM MCP Server

Kommo CRM MCP Server

by E0DUAR
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

kommo_get_note

Retrieve a specific note from Kommo CRM by note ID and entity type (lead, contact, or company). Access detailed note information for any associated record.

Instructions

Get a specific note

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "noteId": "<noteId>",
      "entityType": "<entityType>"
    },
    "name": "kommo_get_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteIdYes
entityTypeYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits. With no annotations present, it fails to state that the tool is read-only, what fields are returned, or any prerequisites. This leaves the agent uninformed about the operation's nature.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence, which is appropriate for a simple tool. However, it lacks any structure or additional details that would aid comprehension.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 2 required parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It omits context about what a note contains, what the return data looks like, and how entityType affects behavior. The agent has insufficient information to invoke the tool confidently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which has 0% coverage. It does not explain that noteId is the identifier of the note or that entityType indicates which entity (lead, contact, or company) the note belongs to. The agent must infer everything from parameter names.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get a specific note' clearly states the verb and resource, distinguishing it from list, create, and update siblings. However, it could explicitly mention retrieval by ID to further differentiate.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kommo_list_notes (for listing notes) or kommo_get_contact/lead (for retrieving the parent entity). The agent receives no context on selection criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools