Notas de uma entidade. action: list (todas as notas do tipo de entidade), list_by_entity (notas de 1 registro), create (adiciona nota; data = JSON). Tipos comuns: common, call_in, call_out, sms_in/out, attachment.
[Flattened action: create]
Bulk support: accepts entity_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| order | No | ||
| filter | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| entity_id | No | ||
| entity_ids | No | ||
| entity_type | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the creation nature is implied, but the description does not disclose any additional behavioral context beyond a brief mention of 'create' and 'data = JSON'. It does not state what happens on success (e.g., returns created note ID), side effects, or any prerequisites. Given annotations exist, the bar is lower, but the description adds minimal extra transparency.
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?
The description is a single overloaded sentence that mixes multiple actions and a flattened action note. It is not focused on the create-only operation and includes extraneous details about other actions, making it wordy and unfocused. A clearer structure would separate the specific create semantics from general entity notes information.
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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations on behavior, the description leaves many gaps. It does not mention return values, required authentication, or explain the data structure for creation. The inclusion of list-related parameters and actions adds confusion rather than completeness for a create tool.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains `data` as 'JSON' and mentions `entity_ids` for bulk. The required `entity_type` is not explained, and other parameters like `page`, `limit`, `order`, `filter`, `account`, and `entity_id` are left undefined. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly construct a valid request.
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?
The description begins by stating 'Notas de uma entidade' (Notes of an entity), then lists multiple actions (list, list_by_entity, create). Although it later says 'Flattened action: create', it does not explicitly state that THIS tool is solely for creating notes. The conflation of list and create actions makes it ambiguous whether the tool performs all actions or only the create one. The tool name provides some clarity, but the description fails to clearly articulate the specific purpose.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool compared to sibling tools like kommo_notes_list or kommo_notes_list_by_entity. It mentions 'action: create' but does not explicitly say 'use this tool to create notes; for listing use the list tools.' The bulk support note is helpful but not enough to guide correct selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools follow a clear entity+action naming scheme, so leads_create, leads_get, etc. are easy to tell apart despite the repeated template in descriptions. Minor ambiguity exists between account and list_accounts, and the generic request tool may be confused with any specialized endpoint.
The dominant pattern kommo_<entity>_<action> is consistently used across most CRUD tools. Deviations like list_accounts, custom_fields, events, and request break the pattern but are still understandable and not chaotic.
48 tools is excessive for a CRM server, even with a large resource surface. Most of the count comes from flattened CRUD actions, which could have been consolidated into fewer, richer tools without losing clarity.
The toolset covers many core Kommo resources: leads, contacts, companies, customer, tasks, notes, pipelines, users, and conversations. However, deletes are missing for most entities, and several resources are read/list-only; the raw request tool fills some of these gaps but is not a first-class substitute.