Retrieve pipeline details and its stages by providing pipeline ID and client slug, giving quick access to funnel structure for a Kommo account.
Busca os detalhes de um funil específico usando o ID (inclui etapas).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| client_slug | Yes | Identificador do cliente (slug) | |
| pipeline_id | Yes |
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. It discloses that this is a read operation and that stages are included, but it does not describe error behavior, response shape beyond 'details', or whether the client_slug is used for scoping.
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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and object, and adding the important stage-inclusion detail. Every word earns its place.
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 simple get-by-id tool with two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description conveys the essential purpose and the notable stage inclusion. But it omits the response envelope, error cases, and the relationship between pipeline_id and client_slug.
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 coverage is 50%: client_slug has a description, while pipeline_id has none. The description's 'usando o ID' clarifies that pipeline_id is the funnel identifier, but it does not explain how client_slug relates to the lookup or how to obtain it. Partial compensation for the undocumented parameter.
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 ('detalhes de um funil específico'), and explicitly notes that the response includes stages. It distinguishes this tool from list-oriented siblings like get_pipelines and from pipeline mutation 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?
The context is implied: use it when you have a specific pipeline ID and need its details. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as get_pipelines for listing all funnels, nor does it state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.