Kommo Kiro MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

add_note

Add a plain text note to a lead's timeline. Notes are internal and not sent to customers.

Instructions

Add a plain text (common) note to a lead's timeline. Not idempotent: repeated calls add duplicate notes. Notes are internal and are not sent to the customer; use send_chat_message for that. Returns the created note.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes	Note content (plain text).
`lead_id`	Yes	Kommo lead ID (integer). Obtain it from list_leads or from the create_lead result.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Note ID.
`_links`	No	HAL links as returned by Kommo (self, next, ...).
`params`	No	Note parameters, e.g. {text}.
`group_id`	No	ID of the responsible user's group.
`entity_id`	No	ID of the entity the note is attached to.
`note_type`	No	Note type, e.g. common.
`account_id`	No	Kommo account ID.
`created_at`	No	Creation time, Unix seconds.
`created_by`	No	ID of the user who created it.
`updated_at`	No	Last update time, Unix seconds.
`updated_by`	No	ID of the user who last updated it.
`responsible_user_id`	No	ID of the responsible Kommo user.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.3Oct 3, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "The created note.",
+  "properties": {
+    "_links": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "HAL links as returned by Kommo (self, next, ...).",
+      "properties": {},
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "account_id": {
+      "description": "Kommo account ID.",
+      "type": [
+        "integer",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "created_at": {
+      "description": "Creation time, Unix seconds.",
+      "type": [
+        "integer",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "created_by": {
+      "description": "ID of the user who created it.",
+      "type": [
+        "integer",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "entity_id": {
+      "description": "ID of the entity the note is attached to.",
+      "type": [
+        "integer",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "group_id": {
+      "description": "ID of the responsible user's group.",
+      "type": [
+        "integer",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "description": "Note ID.",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "note_type": {
+      "description": "Note type, e.g. common.",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "params": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "Note parameters, e.g. {text}.",
+      "properties": {},
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "responsible_user_id": {
+      "description": "ID of the responsible Kommo user.",
+      "type": [
+        "integer",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "updated_at": {
+      "description": "Last update time, Unix seconds.",
+      "type": [
+        "integer",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "updated_by": {
+      "description": "ID of the user who last updated it.",
+      "type": [
+        "integer",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 3, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / lead_id / description

Added value: +"Kommo lead ID (integer). Obtain it from list_leads or from the create_lead result."

changedInput schema / properties / text / description

Previous value: -"Note content"New value: +"Note content (plain text)."

First observedv1.0.0Oct 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=false, so the description's best contribution is explaining the consequence: repeated calls add duplicate notes, which is actionable context the annotation alone doesn't convey. It also clarifies visibility (internal to the team, not sent to the customer). It doesn't mention auth/permission requirements or rate limits.

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 short sentences, all front-loaded: action first, then the idempotency caveat, then the visibility/alternative, then the return. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple two-parameter create tool with 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering safety/idempotency, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: artifact scope, routing to the sibling tool, and the duplicate-call caveat. Return values are covered by the output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (lead_id, text) are already fully documented in the schema, including where to obtain lead_id. The description adds only 'plain text' for the text field, which is marginal. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Add a plain text (common) note to a lead's timeline') and immediately distinguishes the artifact's nature (internal note vs customer-facing message). An agent can distinguish it from send_chat_message and create_task without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent away from this tool when the intent is customer-facing: 'Notes are internal and are not sent to the customer; use send_chat_message for that.' That is a clear alternative with its selecting condition. It stops short of a 5 because it doesn't cover adjacent alternatives such as tasks or tags for other kinds of follow-up.

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