Retrieve open, won, and lost pipeline value with linked deals, quotes, and orders to assess a company's commercial position in DealDesk.
Open/won/lost pipeline value and linked deals, quotes, and orders for a company.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| companyId | Yes | ||
| projectId | No | DealDesk project id. Omit when the OAuth token or API key authorizes exactly one project. Required when Connect authorized several projects. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / projectId / descriptionPrevious 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."Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "projectId",
- "companyId"
-]New value: +[
+ "companyId"
+]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read operation and lists data categories, but says nothing about permissions, whether values are aggregated vs raw, currency, time window, or pagination behavior.
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?
A single sentence with zero filler that front-loads the primary output (pipeline value) before secondary linked records. Appropriately sized for the amount of information conveyed.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and half the parameters undocumented in the schema, the description should be doing far more work. An agent cannot tell what the return shape looks like, whether projectId is needed for its token, or what 'open/won/lost' is measured against.
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 only 50%: projectId is documented in the schema but companyId is not. The phrase 'for a company' weakly implies companyId, and the description adds nothing about the project-scoping rules already stated in the schema.
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?
States a clear verb (get) and resource (commercial summary) and enumerates the returned content: open/won/lost pipeline value plus linked deals, quotes, and orders. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling dealdesk.get_contact_commercial_summary, leaving the company-vs-contact scope to inference.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The presence of closely related siblings (get_contact_commercial_summary, portfolio_summary, get_quote_summary) makes the absence of routing guidance a real gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.