Kommo CRM MCP Server

kommo_update_note

Update an existing note in Kommo CRM for a lead, contact, or company by providing the note ID, entity type, and new text.

Instructions

Update an existing 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>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "kommo_update_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`noteId`	Yes
`entityType`	Yes
`text`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Jun 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the update is idempotent, what happens if the note does not exist, or if it returns the updated note. It only says 'Update an existing note', which implies mutation but lacks detail.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it is overly brief and does not structure information effectively. It lacks front-loading of key details such as required parameters or use cases.

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?

Given the parameter count (3), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, error scenarios, or any constraints on the parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any meaning beyond the schema fields. It does not explain what 'text' or 'entityType' mean in context, nor the role of 'noteId'.

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 clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('an existing note'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'kommo_create_note' and 'kommo_get_note', though 'delete' is not explicitly listed as a sibling. The verb-resource combination is specific.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when to update vs create or get). No mention of prerequisites, such as requiring the note to exist or permissions needed.

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

Deploy Server