Delete a custom field group from Kommo CRM by providing its ID, client slug, and entity type. Manage field groups across leads, contacts, companies, or catalogs.
Exclui um grupo de campos.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID do grupo de campos a ser excluído | |
| 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 carries the full burden of explaining behavioral traits. It discloses only that a field group is deleted, but not whether deletion is irreversible, cascades to contained fields, or requires special permissions. This is minimal behavioral transparency for a destructive operation.
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 redundant wording. It is concise, though so brief that it leaves behavioral and usage details unaddressed.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse for a destructive tool. It fails to mention side effects, restrictions, return values, or the significance of entity_type. An agent has only the input schema to work with, which is insufficient for confident 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 descriptions already cover id and client_slug, and entity_type has an enum and default value. The tool description adds little semantic value beyond naming the resource type, but the schema provides enough baseline meaning for the required parameters. The role of entity_type in deletion remains unexplained.
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 ('Exclui') and resource ('um grupo de campos'), clearly identifying this as a deletion operation on a field group. It is distinguishable from sibling delete tools like delete_custom_field, though it does not explicitly say 'custom' field group.
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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as delete_custom_field, nor does it mention any conditions or prerequisites for deleting a field group. An agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.