Pipedrive MCP Server

pipedrive_create_board

Create a new project board in Pipedrive with a required name. Organize projects by defining board names and optional order numbers.

Instructions

Create a new project board. name is required. (Projects add-on; Projects API 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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "pipedrive_create_board"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Board name (required, must not be empty)
`order_nr`	No	Board order number (integer >= 1)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv2.4.0Jun 17, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate it's a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), not destructive, and not idempotent. The description adds only the note about the add-on and public beta. It does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, or behavior beyond creating a board, which is already implied. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise, with a single clear statement of purpose and a parenthetical note. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could include structured bullet points for better readability.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple creation tool, the description covers the basic purpose and required parameter. However, it lacks context about whether the board belongs to a specific project (given sibling pipedrive_create_project), and the return value is not described (no output schema). It is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters fully described. The description redundantly states that name is required but adds no new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states 'Create a new project board' with the verb 'Create' and resource 'project board'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pipedrive_create_project and pipedrive_create_phase by being specific to boards. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from these alternatives, preventing a perfect score.

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 minimal guidance: it notes 'name is required' and mentions 'Projects add-on; Projects API in public beta.' There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives like pipedrive_create_project or pipedrive_create_phase, nor are prerequisites or context provided.

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

Deploy Server