Get organization
pipedrive_get_organizationRead-only
Get a single organization by its id. Pipedrive REST: GET /api/v2/organizations/{id}.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Organization id (required). |
pipedrive
by io.usefulapi
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds no meaningful behavioral context beyond restating the purpose and endpoint. It does not mention error handling, auth requirements, rate limits, or any side effects, though none are expected for a read operation. Minimal value beyond annotations.
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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The endpoint provides useful technical context without bloating the description.
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 simple single-getter tool with one required parameter, a read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It could mention not-found behavior or return shape, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already describes 'id' as required. The description adds only the REST path and 'by its id', which does not materially enhance parameter understanding. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific action ('Get a single organization') and resource ('by its id'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_organizations and search_organizations. The REST endpoint further reinforces the exact operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you have a specific organization ID and need that single record, but it does not explicitly contrast with list/search tools or mention when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
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.