list_pipelinesRetrieve readable sales pipelines and their phases to find phase IDs for creating or moving deals.
Get Pipelines.
Retrieves the readable pipelines and their phases.
Use this to find phaseIds for creating or moving deals.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the return content (pipelines with their phases) and the qualifier "readable," hinting results are scope/permission-filtered — meaningful since no output schema exists.
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?
Three short lines: purpose, return shape, and use case, in that order — effectively front-loaded. The opening "Get Pipelines." slightly duplicates the title and the tool name, but it costs almost nothing.
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?
For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the two things an agent needs: what the response contains and why it would call this. Nothing about auth, scoping of "readable," or result size is elaborated, but the gap is small for this complexity.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantic burden and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed to obtain the full pipeline list.
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 and resource ("Retrieves the readable pipelines and their phases"), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly contrast with any sibling, but no other tool in the list touches pipelines, so the resource itself is differentiating.
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?
It gives a concrete downstream use: find `phaseId`s for creating or moving deals, which implicitly routes the agent here before create_deal/update_deal. There is no explicit when-not guidance or statement about preconditions, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.