Create a custom field group to organize fields into tabs or sections within a Kommo CRM entity. Specify name, entity type, and client slug to add a new group.
Cria um novo grupo de campos (aba/seção) na entidade.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Nome do novo grupo de campos | |
| sort | No | Ordem de exibição | |
| client_slug | Yes | Identificador do cliente (slug) | |
| entity_type | No | leads |
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 must carry the full behavioral burden. It states only that a new group is created, with no mention of prerequisites, valid entity types, side effects, permissions, or response behavior.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the resource, and a helpful parenthetical clarification ('aba/seção') without wasting words.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, more context is needed: how the group relates to custom fields, what entity_type values are supported, and what the API returns after creation. The current description is too sparse to fully support correct invocation.
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 75%, so the schema already documents name, sort, and client_slug. The prose adds no parameter-specific meaning, and the undocumented entity_type parameter is not explained, but the high schema coverage keeps this at baseline.
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 ('Cria') and resource ('grupo de campos') and clarifies that this is a tab/section within an entity. This distinguishes it from field-level tools like create_custom_field, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_custom_field_group, delete_custom_field_group, or create_custom_field. The only signal is the verb 'creates,' which leaves context to be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.