Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agenthouse-org

dealdesk-mcp

by agenthouse-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

dealdesk.get_card

Retrieve one DealDesk card by card ID to inspect its details; include project ID when multiple projects are authorized.

Instructions

Get one desk card by id.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cardIdYes
projectIdNoDealDesk project id. Omit when the OAuth token or API key authorizes exactly one project. Required when Connect authorized several projects.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cardYesDesk card. Null owner/account fields are omitted so hosts that cached an older object-only schema still accept the payload.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / projectId / description
      Previous value: -"DealDesk project id (must match API key / OAuth project)"New value: +"DealDesk project id. Omit when the OAuth token or API key authorizes exactly one project. Required when Connect authorized several projects."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "projectId",
-  "cardId"
-]New value: +[
+  "cardId"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / additionalProperties
      Previous value: -falseNew value: +true
    • changedOutput schema / properties / card / description
      Previous value: -"Desk card shown in the card-summary widget"New value: +"Desk card. Null owner/account fields are omitted so hosts that cached an older object-only schema still accept the payload."
    • removedOutput schema / properties / card / properties
      Removed value: -{
-  "accountRef": {
-    "additionalProperties": true,
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  "attributes": {
-    "additionalProperties": true,
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  "cardId": {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  "contactRef": {
-    "additionalProperties": true,
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  "description": {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  "deskDescription": {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  "notes": {
-    "type": "array"
-  },
-  "ownerDeskUser": {
-    "additionalProperties": true,
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  "ownerRef": {
-    "additionalProperties": true,
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  "priority": {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  "stage": {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  "title": {
-    "type": "string"
-  }
-}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it says nothing about permissions, error/not-found behavior, or what happens when projectId is omitted and multiple projects are authorized. It only implies a read by virtue of the verb 'Get'.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single short sentence with the key constraint ('one', 'by id') front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than deliberately terse.

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

Completeness2/5

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

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with no annotations and a near-empty description the agent gets no behavioral context: no auth requirements, no failure modes, and no guidance on the optional projectId beyond the schema. It is minimally workable but leaves clear gaps.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 50%: projectId is documented in the schema, but cardId has no schema description, and the description's 'by id' adds no format or sourcing detail. With half the parameters undocumented, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('desk card') scoped to a single record, which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_cards. However, it does not explicitly name that alternative or otherwise differentiate itself from the many other get_* tools in the family.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no pointer to an alternative such as list_cards when the caller does not have an id. The agent must infer the usage context entirely from the name.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools