Skip to main content
Glama

pipedrive

by io.usefulapi

Create activity

pipedrive_create_activity
Destructive

Create a new activity (task/event). subject is required; link it to a deal/person/org and set type/date/time as needed. Pipedrive REST: POST /api/v2/activities.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
doneNoWhether the activity is already marked done.
noteNoFree-text note attached to the activity.
typeNoActivity type key, e.g. 'call', 'meeting', 'task', 'email'.
org_idNoLink to this organization id.
deal_idNoLink to this deal id.
subjectYesActivity subject/title (required).
due_dateNoDue date, yyyy-mm-dd.
due_timeNoDue time, HH:MM (24h).
durationNoDuration, HH:MM.
owner_idNoAssign to this owner (user) id.
person_idNoLink to this person id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent already knows this is a write operation. The description adds that it creates a task/event but does not disclose additional behaviors like required permissions, idempotency, or side effects. It does not contradict the annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and key constraint. Every word is informative, and no space is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a create tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential usage pattern and references the REST endpoint. It does not explain return values or errors, but the schema and annotations cover the rest adequately.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds strategic value by highlighting 'subject' as required and suggesting the optional linking to deal/person/org plus type/date/time, which helps prioritize the most important fields.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool 'Create a new activity (task/event)' with specificity, and distinguishes it from sibling read tools such as pipedrive_list_activities. The REST endpoint is also provided, reinforcing the action.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context on how to use the tool (required subject, linking to deal/person/org, setting type/date/time) and implies it is for creating rather than listing activities. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as pipedrive_list_activities or pipedrive_add_note.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All pipedrive toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, with clear separation between create, get, list, and search operations. The global search tool is explicitly differentiated from entity-specific searches, and pipelines/stages/current_user are unique. No two tools appear to serve the same purpose.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_deals, get_person, create_activity), with the exception of 'add_note' using 'add' instead of 'create'. This is a minor deviation that does not cause confusion, but the inconsistency between add and create is noticeable.

Tool Count4/5

At 19 tools, the server covers a broad set of CRM entities and operations, which is reasonable for the scope. While it is on the heavier side, each tool serves a distinct function and none are redundant. The count feels justified for a comprehensive CRM integration.

Completeness2/5

The server lacks update and delete operations for all entities, and there is no create operation for organizations, pipelines, or stages. This creates significant gaps that would prevent agents from modifying existing records or creating certain entities. The read and search capabilities are solid, but the lifecycle coverage is severely incomplete.

Resources