Pipedrive MCP Server

search_organizations

Search for organizations in Pipedrive CRM using specific terms and fields to find relevant business contacts and data.

Instructions

Search for organizations

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_organizations"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`term`	Yes	Search term
`fields`	No	Comma-separated fields to search in
`exact_match`	No	Use exact match
`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

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. However, it reveals nothing about search semantics (fuzzy vs exact matching behavior), pagination behavior, return values, or read-only status. The schema hints at 'exact_match' and pagination, but the description adds no context.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is extremely brief at three words with zero redundancy. However, given the tool's complexity (5 parameters including pagination controls), this brevity may be inadequate rather than appropriately concise. No structural issues.

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?

For a search tool with 5 parameters, pagination support, and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the search scope, what fields are available to search (hinted at only in the 'fields' parameter), or how results are returned.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage across the 5 parameters, the baseline score is 3 per the rubric. The description 'Search for organizations' adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (term, fields, exact_match, start, limit).

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states the core action ('Search') and resource ('organizations'), but is extremely minimal and borderline tautological (tool name is 'search_organizations', description says 'Search for organizations'). It fails to differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_organizations' or 'search_persons'.

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?

Contains no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_organizations' (which likely retrieves specific records by ID) or 'search_persons'/'search_deals'. No mention of prerequisites, filtering logic, or expected use cases.

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