Fetch a single page of company records from Kommo CRM for read-only review, up to 100 entries; set the limit parameter to control page size.
List companies. Read-only. Returns one page of company objects, at most limit (capped at 100), with no name search and no further pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum companies to return. Default 50, capped at 100. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionAdded value: +"Maximum companies to return. Default 50, capped at 100."v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior beyond them: results are a single page, hard-capped at 100, with no cursor continuation, which tells the agent it cannot exhaustively enumerate companies with this tool.
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?
Three short clauses, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and each carries information. Slightly redundant in re-stating the limit cap that the schema already documents, which keeps it from a 5.
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 no output schema, the description does the necessary work of telling the agent what comes back (company objects, one page only). Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has enough to call this correctly, though company fields and whether a total count exists remain unstated.
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 `limit` parameter is fully described in-schema, including the default 50 and cap of 100. The description only restates that cap, adding no syntax or semantic value beyond the schema, 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 ('List companies') and immediately bounds the result set ('one page of company objects'). It does not name or differentiate from siblings like list_leads/list_contacts, but the scope statement is precise enough that an agent knows exactly what it retrieves.
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 rules out two usage modes an agent might otherwise assume: 'no name search and no further pagination'. That is a real when-not signal, though it stops short of naming an alternative tool for searching or paging.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.