Pipedrive MCP Server

search_deals

Find deals in Pipedrive CRM by searching terms across deal fields with filters for organizations, contacts, and pagination controls.

Instructions

Search for deals

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "term": "<term>"
    },
    "name": "search_deals"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`term`	Yes	Search term
`fields`	No	Comma-separated fields to search in
`exact_match`	No	Use exact match
`person_id`	No	Filter by person ID
`org_id`	No	Filter by organization ID
`start`	No	Pagination start
`limit`	No	Number of items to return

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Apr 1, 2026

TDQS

C2/5.0

Behavior1/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it provides no information about read-only status, pagination behavior, rate limits, or what constitutes a match. This leaves the agent with no safety or operational context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

While not verbose, the three-word description suffers from under-specification rather than effective conciseness. For a tool with 7 parameters and numerous search-related siblings, this length is inappropriately minimal and fails to front-load any meaningful context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, 6 optional), lack of annotations, no output schema, and dense sibling space with overlapping functionality (get_deals, search_items, search_summarized), the description is inadequate. It relies entirely on the schema for parameter documentation without explaining the search domain or return behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 7 parameters (e.g., 'Comma-separated fields to search in'), so the baseline score of 3 applies. The description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Search for deals' is essentially a tautology that merely converts the snake_case tool name into sentence form with minimal grammatical expansion. It fails to specify the scope of search (e.g., exact vs. fuzzy matching) or distinguish from sibling tools like get_deals or search_items.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this search functionality versus retrieving deals directly via get_deals, or when to use search_items versus this specific deal search. No prerequisites or alternatives are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.