Kommo MCP Server

rename_pipeline_stage

Rename a pipeline stage or update its color, sorting, and tips to better organize your sales process.

Instructions

Rename an existing stage/status inside a pipeline, or change its color, sorting, and descriptions (tips).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "pipeline_id": "<pipeline_id>",
      "status_id": "<status_id>"
    },
    "name": "rename_pipeline_stage"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`pipeline_id`	Yes	ID of the pipeline
`status_id`	Yes	ID of the stage (status) to modify
`name`	No	The new name for the stage (status)
`color`	No	Background color of the stage in hex format (e.g. #fffd7f)
`sort`	No	Sorting order (position) of the stage
`descriptions`	No	Array of stage descriptions (tips). Format: [{ level: 'newbie'\|'candidate'\|'master', description: 'text' }]

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It only states the intended modifications without disclosing side effects, permissions, reversibility, or event triggers. Significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Single sentence, 17 words, no filler. Front-loaded with the key action 'rename' and lists other modifiable properties efficiently.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It omits important context like return format, idempotency, required permissions, or effects on existing data.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, merely restating that parameters correspond to rename, color, sorting, and tips. No new semantics.

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?

The description clearly states the resource (existing stage/status inside a pipeline) and the actions (rename, change color, sorting, descriptions). It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_pipeline_stage' and 'rename_pipeline'.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage via context (rename or modify stage), but does not provide explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance. It assumes the user already knows the pipeline and status IDs.

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