Retrieve all deals from Pipedrive with optional filters by status, stage ID, or pipeline ID to analyze your sales pipeline.
Get all deals with optional filters
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Filter by status | |
| stageId | No | Filter by stage ID | |
| pipelineId | No | Filter by pipeline ID |
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, yet it discloses nothing about pagination, result caps, default sort/scope, or permission requirements. For a list endpoint with zero annotations this is a notable gap.
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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource and free of redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than tight concision.
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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain default behavior (e.g., whether unfiltered calls return all deals), pagination, and how it differs from get_deal_details. None of this is present, leaving real gaps for a list tool in a crowded sibling set.
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 all three filter parameters are already documented in the schema, and the phrase 'optional filters' merely confirms their optional filter role. Baseline 3 applies since the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond 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?
The description names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('deals'), making the core operation unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling get_deal_details, leaving the agent to infer that this returns a collection rather than a single deal's details.
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?
'with optional filters' hints at usage but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative get_deal_details for single records, and no statement of what happens when no filters are supplied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.