Add new users to a Kommo CRM account by specifying the client slug and user details such as name, email, and password.
Adiciona novos usuários à conta do Kommo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| users | Yes | Lista de usuários a serem criados | |
| client_slug | Yes | Identificador do cliente (slug) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that the tool mutates (adds users) but says nothing about bulk-operation semantics (partial failures when creating multiple users), duplicate-email behavior, permission requirements, or rate limits. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste that clearly states the core purpose. It is efficient and every word earns its place, though additional behavioral context would improve completeness.
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 mutating bulk-create tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. Key missing context: what happens on duplicate emails, whether partial failures occur when creating multiple users, and what the response contains. The schema covers parameters, but the surrounding behavior is undocumented.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3 with no param info needed from the description. The schema already documents client_slug and the users array (name, email, password, rights_role_id) adequately, and the description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides.
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 states a specific verb ('Adiciona' - adds), a clear resource ('novos usuários' - new users), and scope ('à conta do Kommo'). It unambiguously identifies this as the user-creation operation and is inherently distinguishable from all get_* siblings (get_users, get_user_by_id), which are read operations on the same resource.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., admin permissions), or exclusions. An agent must infer entirely from sibling names that this is the creation counterpart to get_users/get_user_by_id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.