Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Pipedrive MCP Server

Pipedrive MCP Server

by ckalima
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

pipedrive_create_phase

Create a new project phase with a required name and board ID. Add phases to Pipedrive project boards.

Instructions

Create a new project phase. name and board_id are 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>",
      "board_id": "<board_id>"
    },
    "name": "pipedrive_create_phase"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesPhase name (required, must not be empty)
board_idYesID of the board this phase belongs to (required)
order_nrNoPhase order number (integer >= 1)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.4.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations indicate it is a write operation (readOnlyHint false) with no destructive or idempotent hints. The description only restates 'create,' adding no new behavioral context such as side effects, authorization needs, or error conditions.

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 extremely concise—one sentence plus a parenthetical—with no wasted words. The purpose is stated first, fulfilling the front-loading principle.

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 tool creates a new entity (phase) with three parameters and no output schema, the description lacks important context: what a phase is, its relationship to boards/projects, any uniqueness constraints, or expected response behavior. The openWorldHint suggests side effects, but these are not explained.

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, so the schema already fully documents each parameter. The description redundantly mentions required fields but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 purpose as 'Create a new project phase,' using a specific verb and resource. Among sibling tools, only this one is for creating phases, so it is well-distinguished.

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 mentions required parameters and the Projects add-on beta status, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_stage) or any exclusions.

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