Retrieve contact lists from Kommo CRM by client account, with optional search by name, phone, or email and pagination control.
Busca uma lista de contatos no Kommo CRM.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | Termo de busca (nome, telefone, email) | |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects, auth needs, and operational scope, but it only says a list is searched. It does not mention whether results are paginated, how the query parameter affects behavior, or any constraints. 'Busca' hints at a read operation, but the behavioral context is mostly absent.
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 text is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently structured; a short description can still be complete, but this one omits usage and parameter context.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should supply more context about return data, pagination, and when to use it. The required client_slug and query semantics are only partially covered by the schema, and the description itself adds no operational context.
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 only 50%, so the description should compensate for undocumented page and limit, but it says nothing about any parameter. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving page and limit semantics to inference from their names and defaults.
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 ('Busca'/'searches') and a clear resource ('lista de contatos no Kommo CRM'), so an agent can identify this as the contact-list retrieval tool among siblings like get_companies and get_leads. It does not explicitly call out sibling boundaries or filtering behavior, so it stops short of a 5.
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 prefer get_contacts over alternatives such as get_leads, get_companies, or create_contact, and no mention of how query filtering or pagination should be used. The intended usage has to be inferred from the single sentence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.