Update an existing contact's data in Kommo CRM using the contact ID and client slug. Change first name, last name, or custom fields to ensure accurate records.
Atualiza um contato existente.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID do contato | |
| last_name | No | ||
| first_name | No | ||
| client_slug | Yes | Identificador do cliente (slug) | |
| custom_fields_values | No |
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 only states that the tool updates an existing contact, without explaining whether it performs a partial update, what happens to unspecified fields, whether custom_fields_values are merged or replaced, or any authentication/permission requirements. The mutation intent is clear, but the behavioral context is minimal.
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 short sentence with zero filler or redundancy. It communicates the core operation immediately and contains no wasted words.
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 the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is far too sparse. An agent is left without critical information about which fields can be updated, the semantics of custom_fields_values, potential side effects, or what the response contains. It is minimally sufficient to identify the intended action but not to invoke the tool safely or correctly.
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 40%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning whatsoever. It does not explain what values are expected, how custom_fields_values behaves, or which parameters are optional. With low schema coverage, the description needed to compensate but entirely fails to do so.
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 and resource: 'Atualiza um contato existente' (updates an existing contact). It clearly identifies the object as a contact and signals that the operation targets an existing record, distinguishing it from create_contact. However, it does not mention any scope, fields, or distinguishing details beyond the resource type.
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?
Usage is implied: use this tool when an existing contact needs to be modified, as opposed to creating a new contact. But there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites or side effects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.