Retrieve a contact's open, won, and lost pipeline value with linked deals, quotes, and orders to assess their commercial activity.
Open/won/lost pipeline value and linked deals, quotes, and orders for a contact.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contactId | 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",
- "contactId"
-]New value: +[
+ "contactId"
+]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 behavioral burden. It implies a read-only aggregation but says nothing about permissions, whether values are live or cached, currency/date handling, or pagination limits on the linked deals/quotes/orders.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is arguably too terse for a tool with auth-scoped parameters, but nothing is padding.
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?
There is no output schema, so the one-line enumeration of returned data does useful work, and the projectId scoping rule is covered elsewhere. Still missing are the auth/project authorization expectations and any sense of the shape or size of the linked deals, quotes, and orders returned.
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 50%: projectId is well documented in the schema (including exactly when it is required), while contactId is only self-evident by name. The description adds no parameter detail, so it neither compensates nor undermines — baseline 3 for a two-param tool at half coverage.
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 specific resource and enumerates exactly what it returns: open/won/lost pipeline value plus linked deals, quotes, and orders for a contact. This lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling get_company_commercial_summary and get_contact, though the description never names those alternatives explicitly.
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 guidance on when to use this versus siblings such as get_contact, get_company_commercial_summary, or portfolio_summary. The agent must infer the use case purely from the output contents listed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.