crm_pipeline_overviewEvery pipeline and stage with its lead count and total value. The shape of the funnel. [scope: crm:read]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | No | False when the call was refused or failed; see error. | |
| error | No | Machine-readable refusal code (a string), present only when ok is false. | |
| message | No | Human-readable explanation of a refusal (a string). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "error": {
+ "description": "Machine-readable refusal code (a string), present only when ok is false."
+ },
+ "message": {
+ "description": "Human-readable explanation of a refusal (a string)."
+ },
+ "ok": {
+ "description": "False when the call was refused or failed; see error.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the required auth scope (crm:read) and discloses the aggregation granularity (per pipeline and per stage with counts and totals), which is real context beyond the structured fields. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Two short sentences and a scope tag, with the payload front-loaded. 'The shape of the funnel' is slightly redundant with the first sentence, but it efficiently conveys the aggregate gestalt without padding.
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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only, non-destructive tool with an output schema already defining return shape, the description covers purpose, scope and auth requirement. The only material omission is routing guidance relative to overlapping siblings such as dashboard_snapshot or crm_list_leads.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing to document and no gap between schema and description. The description correctly implies an unfiltered global aggregate rather than a parameterized query.
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 names the resource (every pipeline and stage) and the payload returned (lead count and total value), which is a precise, non-tautological statement of what the tool produces. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like crm_list_leads or dashboard_snapshot, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. 'The shape of the funnel' implicitly signals an aggregate/overview use case versus the per-lead tools (crm_list_leads, crm_get_lead), but the agent must infer that; no alternative is named.
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.