Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Pipedrive MCP Server

Pipedrive MCP Server

by ckalima
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

pipedrive_archive_project

Idempotent

Archive a Pipedrive project by changing its status to archived. Use this to declutter active project lists and manage lifecycle.

Instructions

Archive a project by setting its status to archived. (Requires the Projects add-on; Projects API is in public beta.)

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "pipedrive_archive_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesProject ID to archive

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.4.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description explains the effect (setting status to archived) and adds context about the add-on requirement and beta status. Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and no destructiveness, which are consistent with the description.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, clear sentence plus a concise parenthetical note. No unnecessary words, perfectly front-loaded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the simplicity of the tool (one required parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, effect, and prerequisites. It could mention the impact on listing visibility, but overall sufficient.

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 only parameter 'id' is described in the schema as 'Project ID to archive'. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Archive a project') and the resource (project). It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_project or create_project by specifying the archiving action.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description mentions the requirement for the Projects add-on and that the API is in public beta, providing context for usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools