Fetch leads from Kommo CRM with pagination and search. Specify client slug, page, limit, and query to retrieve filtered lead lists.
Busca uma lista de leads no Kommo CRM. Permite paginação e busca por termo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Página dos resultados | |
| limit | No | Quantidade de leads por página | |
| query | No | Termo de busca (ex: nome, 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a search/list ('Busca uma lista de leads') and reveals pagination and query-filtering behavior, which is appropriate for a read-only tool. It does not contradict any annotation and adds relevant context beyond the schema.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences: the first names the action and resource, the second lists the key capabilities. No redundant words or repetition of schema details.
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 list operation with no output schema, the description clearly conveys that a list of leads is returned and how to control it (pagination/query). It could explicitly differentiate from get_lead_by_id, but the word 'lista' already signals that; the schema fills remaining parameter details.
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 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description only vaguely references pagination and search, which maps to page/limit and query, but adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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' and resource 'uma lista de leads no Kommo CRM', clearly indicating this tool fetches a list of leads. It also mentions pagination and search, which distinguishes it from the sibling get_lead_by_id for a single lead.
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 implies usage for listing leads with pagination or term search, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_lead_by_id, nor does it mention any exclusions. The context is clear but not explicit about alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.