close_meGet the current Close user and organization for the supplied API key. Returns user ID, name, email, and the organizations (with IDs) the key can access. Use this to verify the key works and discover your organization context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| _apiKey | Yes | Close API key (Settings → API Keys) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's burden is lower. It adds value by detailing the specific data returned (user, name, email, organizations) and the purpose (verification, context discovery), which is beyond what annotations convey. No contradictions.
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 two sentences long, with the action and primary purpose stated first. Every sentence is essential—no redundancy or filler. It is optimally concise for such a simple tool.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity, single parameter, and lack of output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: it names the returned fields (user ID, name, email, organizations) and the use case (verify key, discover context). Annotations handle the behavioral safety profile. No gaps remain.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning about the _apiKey parameter beyond what the schema already provides ('Close API key (Settings → API Keys)'). Thus, no extra value is contributed.
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 clearly states the tool gets the current Close user and organization for the supplied API key, specifying the verb 'get' and the resource. It also lists the return fields (user ID, name, email, organizations), making the purpose unmistakable. No sibling tool serves the same function, so differentiation is inherent.
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 explicitly advises using the tool to verify the API key works and discover organization context, which is a direct and actionable usage guideline. It does not mention when not to use or list alternatives, but given that no sibling provides equivalent functionality, the guidance is sufficient.
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.
Multiple Pipeworx tools overlap significantly (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes all query similar data). Close CRM tools are distinct but the overall set mixes two domains, causing confusion.
Tool names mix snakes (close_get_lead), lowercase (ask_pipeworx), and descriptive phrases (scan_competitor_ai_presence). No consistent verb_noun pattern across the entire set.
37 tools is excessive for a focused server. The combination of Close CRM and Pipeworx data services creates scope creep; many tools could be separate servers.
Pipeworx tools offer extensive data coverage, but Close CRM lacks update/delete operations for leads, contacts, and opportunities, leaving basic CRUD gaps.