Skip to main content
Glama
depper-IA

Kommo Kiro MCP

by depper-IA
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

update_contact

Idempotent

Modify fields on an existing Kommo CRM contact via a PATCH request. Overwrites provided values; omitted fields stay untouched, returning the updated contact.

Instructions

Update fields on an existing contact by sending fields as the body of a Kommo API v4 PATCH /contacts/{id}. Returns the updated contact. Provided values overwrite existing ones; omitted fields are untouched.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldsYesRaw Kommo v4 contact fields to change, passed through unchanged. Common keys: name, first_name, last_name, responsible_user_id, custom_fields_values (array of {field_id, values: [{value, enum_code}]}; field IDs from list_custom_fields). Example: {"name": "Jane Roe"}.
contact_idYesKommo contact ID (integer). Obtain it from list_contacts or from the create_contact result.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / contact_id / description
      Added value: +"Kommo contact ID (integer). Obtain it from list_contacts or from the create_contact result."
    • changedInput schema / properties / fields / description
      Previous value: -"Fields to update"New value: +"Raw Kommo v4 contact fields to change, passed through unchanged. Common keys: name, first_name, last_name, responsible_user_id, custom_fields_values (array of {field_id, values: [{value, enum_code}]}; field IDs from list_custom_fields). Example: {\"name\": \"Jane Roe\"}."
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuine value with merge semantics ('Provided values overwrite existing ones; omitted fields are untouched') and return behavior. It doesn't cover error cases or permission requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return value, then mutation semantics. No filler, every clause carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 2-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the return shape, and overwrite behavior, while annotations handle the safety profile. Minor gaps remain around error handling and custom-field specifics, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema itself thoroughly documents both contact_id and the nested fields object. The description only restates that fields is sent as the body, adding little beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (update) and resource (contact) plus the exact mechanism (Kommo API v4 PATCH /contacts/{id}). This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like create_contact, get_contact, and list_contacts without needing their schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'existing contact' clearly scopes it against create_contact, giving usable context for selection. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating explicit exclusions, so it lands just below the top tier.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools