Kommo Kiro MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_stage

Add a new stage to a Kommo pipeline after existing editable stages, using a pipeline ID and stage name. Optionally set a hex color; each call creates another stage and clears caches.

Instructions

Add a stage to a pipeline. It is placed after the pipeline's existing editable stages (sort is computed automatically). Not idempotent: each call creates another stage. Returns the created stage. Clears the stage and pipeline caches.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Stage name, e.g. "Negotiation".
`color`	No	Hex color sent to Kommo as-is, e.g. #4CAF50. Optional; Kommo may restrict it to its own palette.
`pipeline_id`	Yes	Kommo pipeline ID (integer). Obtain it from list_pipelines.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Stage ID.
`name`	No	Stage name.
`sort`	No	Sort order.
`type`	No	0 for regular stages, 1 for unsorted.
`color`	No	Hex color.
`account_id`	No	Kommo account ID.
`is_editable`	No	Whether the stage can be edited.
`pipeline_id`	No	Parent pipeline ID.

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 stage.",
+  "properties": {
+    "account_id": {
+      "description": "Kommo account ID.",
+      "type": [
+        "integer",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "color": {
+      "description": "Hex color.",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "description": "Stage ID.",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "is_editable": {
+      "description": "Whether the stage can be edited.",
+      "type": [
+        "boolean",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "description": "Stage name.",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "pipeline_id": {
+      "description": "Parent pipeline ID.",
+      "type": [
+        "integer",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "sort": {
+      "description": "Sort order.",
+      "type": [
+        "integer",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "type": {
+      "description": "0 for regular stages, 1 for unsorted.",
+      "type": [
+        "integer",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 3, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / color / description

Previous value: -"Hex color (e.g. #4CAF50)"New value: +"Hex color sent to Kommo as-is, e.g. #4CAF50. Optional; Kommo may restrict it to its own palette."

changedInput schema / properties / name / description

Previous value: -"Stage name"New value: +"Stage name, e.g. \"Negotiation\"."

addedInput schema / properties / pipeline_id / description

Added value: +"Kommo pipeline ID (integer). Obtain it from list_pipelines."

First observedv1.0.0Oct 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond that: automatic sort placement after existing editable stages, and cache invalidation of stage and pipeline caches, which annotations cannot express.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and zero filler. The final "Returns the created stage" is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, but the sentences otherwise all earn their place.

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 create tool with a full input schema, an output schema and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description supplies the missing operational context (placement, cache side effects). Only the lack of guidance relative to sibling tools keeps it from a 5.

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%, so the schema already documents name, color and pipeline_id (including the list_pipelines pointer). The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The opening sentence gives a specific verb+resource ("Add a stage to a pipeline") and the follow-up clarifies placement semantics. It does not explicitly name a sibling to distinguish from (e.g. update_stage, create_pipeline), so it stops short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named (update_stage and create_pipeline are the obvious near neighbours). The non-idempotency note is behavioral, not routing guidance, so the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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