Tasks do Kommo. action: list (busca paginada com filtros), get (por id), create (cria, body em data), update (atualiza; com id = 1 item, sem id = bulk com array em data).
[Flattened action: create]
Bulk support: accepts ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| ids | No | ||
| data | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| with | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| order | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| filter | No | ||
| account | No |
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 are weak (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the burden. It adds only 'body em data' and 'Bulk support: accepts ids for batched execution'; it does not disclose return behavior, required input format, side effects, or error behavior.
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 text is short but structurally confusing: it front-loads an action list that is mostly irrelevant to a create-flattened tool and mixes Portuguese and English. '[Flattened action: create]' is buried after the multi-action description rather than serving as the clear lead.
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 10 parameters, no parameter descriptions, no output schema, and no rich annotations, the description should specify how to construct a valid create request. It does not explain the data payload format, which fields are required, or what a successful create returns, so it is incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 coverage is 0% and there are 10 parameters. The description adds partial meaning for 'data' (body), 'ids' (batch execution), and list filters, but leaves most parameters (account, with, query, page, limit, order, filter) unexplained and does not clarify the expected JSON structure for 'data'.
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 identifies the resource ('Tasks do Kommo') and the intended action ('create (cria, body em data)' plus 'Flattened action: create'), so an agent can infer it creates tasks. However, it opens by enumerating list/get/update actions that belong to sibling tools, so the create-specific purpose is muddled rather than crisply stated.
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?
There is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus kommo_tasks_list/get/update. The 'Flattened action: create' hint suggests the action is fixed, but no when-to-use or exclusion guidance is provided.
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.