Retrieve detailed information about a specific custom field in Kommo CRM by passing its ID and client slug, optionally specifying the entity type.
Busca detalhes de um campo customizado específico usando o ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID do campo customizado | |
| 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 behavioral disclosure. It communicates the basic read-only intent, but does not disclose how entity_type scopes the lookup, what happens for missing or invalid IDs, or how client_slug factors into the request. This is a real gap for a getter with three parameters.
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 no filler. It states the action, the object, and the key selection criterion immediately, which is ideal for an agent scanning tool definitions.
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?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete for non-default lookups. It does not explain that entity_type defaults to 'leads' and must be changed for contacts, companies, or catalogs, nor does it point to get_custom_fields as the list counterpart. For a simple default use it suffices, but not for correct handling of the full parameter space.
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?
The description only mentions the ID, which the input schema already documents. It does not explain client_slug or the entity_type parameter, though the schema covers 67% of parameters with descriptions and provides an enum for entity_type. The description adds no real parametric meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already handles most of the burden.
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 clear verb ('Busca') and resource ('detalhes de um campo customizado específico') and identifies the retrieval mechanism ('usando o ID'). This effectively separates it from list-style siblings like get_custom_fields and from group-level getters like get_custom_field_group_by_id, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_custom_fields, nor about when the optional entity_type should be changed from its default. The agent must infer usage from the name and sibling list, which is insufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.