Create a new sales pipeline by name for organizing Kommo CRM deals. Then add stages with create_stage.
Create a new sales pipeline with the given name (sort order 99). Not idempotent: each call creates another pipeline. Returns the created pipeline. Add stages afterwards with create_stage. Clears the pipelines cache.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Pipeline name, e.g. "Enterprise". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / name / descriptionPrevious value: -"Pipeline name"New value: +"Pipeline name, e.g. \"Enterprise\"."v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=false, and the description reinforces this with the consequence ('each call creates another pipeline'), which is more actionable than the flag alone. It also discloses a novel side effect absent from the annotations: clearing the pipelines cache. Return value is described, partially compensating for the missing output 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?
Five short sentences, each carrying distinct information: creation semantics, idempotency, return value, follow-up step, and a side effect. The core action is front-loaded with no filler.
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 single-param creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the important non-obvious behaviors: non-idempotence, the return value, the cache-clearing side effect, and the natural next step. Nothing an agent needs before calling is missing.
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 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the default sort order (99) as useful context but no format or constraint detail beyond that, so the 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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Create a new sales pipeline') and immediately distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming create_stage as the follow-up step and implying the list_pipelines/update_pipeline relationship. An agent can identify the operation without inspecting the schema.
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?
Explicitly tells the agent to use create_stage afterwards to add stages, giving a clear workflow ordering that sibling names alone wouldn't convey. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming a direct alternative for pipeline creation, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.