Mark a task as completed in a client's Kommo CRM account and add an optional result note to document the outcome.
Marca uma tarefa como concluída e, opcionalmente, adiciona um resultado/observação.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | ID da tarefa | |
| client_slug | Yes | Identificador do cliente (slug) | |
| result_text | Yes | Texto com o resultado/observação da conclusão da tarefa |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states that the task is marked complete and an observation may be added. It doesn't disclose reversibility, permissions, or return behavior, and it contradicts the input schema by calling result_text optional when the schema requires it.
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 one front-loaded sentence with no filler, and every clause contributes to understanding the operation. Structure is appropriate for a simple tool.
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 mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and a required parameter that the description calls optional, this is not complete enough. It fails to clarify the response/return behavior and leaves a schema contradiction that could cause an agent to invoke the tool incorrectly.
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?
All three parameters already have schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description's extra value is limited to restating the notion of completion, and its 'opcionalmente' wording actively misleads about the required result_text parameter.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Marca uma tarefa como concluída') and clearly conveys the state transition. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as update_task or add_note, so it doesn't reach the top score.
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?
The intended use is clear: call this tool when a task should be marked as completed and optionally record an outcome. It provides no exclusions or comparison with update_task/add_note, so it misses the 'when not to use' guidance that would earn a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.