crm_get_dealOne deal with its pipeline and stage, its stage history (each stage and the days it stayed there), its notes with who wrote each (by and via, as crm_timeline gives them), and its contact and company. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deal_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description still adds real value: it discloses the shape of the payload (stage history with days per stage, note authorship) and the 'Free' note, which presumably signals no credit/quota consumption. It does not say what happens when the deal is missing or inaccessible.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the primary resource and then the returned facets. The parentheticals earn their place by clarifying exactly what the stage history and note attribution contain.
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 no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting well by enumerating the returned entities, which is what an agent needs to decide whether this call suffices. It stops short of error/empty-result behavior and of clarifying the unusual 'Free' qualifier.
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%, so the description should carry meaning for deal_id, but it never mentions it. The single required integer id is self-evident from the tool name, which keeps this from being a real gap, but there is no added semantics (format, source of the id, lookup of archived deals).
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?
It states a specific resource and enumerates its scope precisely: a single deal plus pipeline/stage, stage history with dwell days, notes with by/via attribution, and linked contact/company. 'One deal' cleanly separates it from the plural search tool crm_find_deals and from mutators like crm_save_deal/crm_move_deal.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'One deal' suggests lookup-by-id versus search, and the crm_timeline reference hints at a relationship with that tool. There is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of crm_find_deals or crm_timeline, and no mention of preconditions such as a valid deal_id.
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.