Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kommo CRM MCP Server

Kommo CRM MCP Server

by E0DUAR
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

kommo_update_task

Update an existing task in Kommo CRM by specifying the task ID and optional fields like text and completion status.

Instructions

Update an existing task

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": {
      "taskId": "<taskId>"
    },
    "name": "kommo_update_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskIdYes
textNo
is_completedNo

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'update' but does not disclose idempotency, error behavior (e.g., if taskId not found), or response format. Minimal transparency.

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?

Extremely concise (one phrase) but under-specified. Lacks structure such as paragraphs or bullet points. Conciseness is good, but at the expense of completeness.

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 mutation tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. Does not explain return values, error handling, permissions, or field constraints.

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% and the description adds no explanation for the three parameters. The agent receives no information about what 'text' or 'is_completed' represent or their constraints.

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 'Update an existing task' clearly communicates the action (update) and the resource (task). It distinguishes from sibling tools like kommo_create_task (creation) and kommo_get_task (retrieval).

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 versus alternatives. Lacks prerequisites (e.g., the taskId must exist) or context for which scenarios are appropriate.

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