Retrieve detailed information for a specific Pipedrive deal, including associated person and organization data, to analyze pipeline health and deal velocity.
Get detailed information about a specific deal, including person and organization info
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The ID of the deal |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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 does disclose that the response includes person and organization data, but says nothing about permissions required, whether the deal must exist, or error behavior for invalid IDs. The read-only nature is only implied by 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with the resource and payload front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it could have used one more clause to route agents away from the list tool.
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 description should explain the return shape; it partially does by naming person and organization info but omits other likely fields. For a simple single-parameter read this is adequate but leaves gaps around error handling and auth.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the single 'id' parameter is already documented as 'The ID of the deal'. The description adds no format, type, or sourcing guidance for the ID, so baseline 3 applies.
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 verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific deal') and adds the payload scope (person and organization info), which distinguishes it from the sibling get_deals list tool. It is clear but never names the sibling alternative explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.
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?
The required 'id' parameter implies the usage context (fetch one deal's detail by identifier), so an agent can infer when to reach for it over get_deals. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no preconditions, and no reference to alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.