Update a Kommo CRM funnel's name, sort order, or main flag to keep pipeline data current.
Atualiza o nome ou propriedades de um funil existente.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID do funil | |
| name | No | ||
| sort | No | ||
| is_main | No | ||
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool updates name or properties, but does not mention side effects, idempotency, error behavior, or any constraints. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and object. There is no wasted text, making it efficient for quick comprehension.
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?
With 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not specify which parameters are updatable beyond 'name or properties', does not explain required vs optional fields, or describe expected behavior on success/failure. An agent needs more detail to call the tool correctly and safely.
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% (only id and client_slug have descriptions). The tool description does not compensate by explaining the other parameters (name, sort, is_main). It mentions 'name or properties' but does not map to specific parameters or clarify their meaning or optionality. This leaves agents guessing about the non-required fields.
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 clearly states the action (update) and the resource (pipeline), and specifies that it updates the name or properties of an existing pipeline. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_pipeline and delete_pipeline, so an agent can easily identify its purpose.
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 when to use the tool (for modifying existing pipelines) by using the word 'existing', and the sibling list makes the update-vs-create distinction evident. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives. The context is clear enough for a basic agent, but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.