Pipedrive MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively explains that deletion is not immediate ('marked as deleted and permanently removed after 30 days'), which is crucial context about the tool's destructive nature and timing. However, it doesn't cover other aspects like permissions needed, error conditions, or response format.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Delete a deal') and follows with important behavioral context. Every word serves a purpose, with no wasted text or redundancy.

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

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

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the deletion process and 30-day permanence. It covers key behavioral aspects but could be more complete by addressing permissions, error handling, or what happens to associated data. Given the complexity, it's above minimum viable but not fully comprehensive.

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

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter clearly documented as 'Deal ID to delete'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a deal'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pipedrive_update_deal or pipedrive_get_deal by focusing on deletion rather than modification or retrieval.

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

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

The description implies usage for deleting deals, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to delete vs. update or mark inactive). It mentions the 30-day permanent removal, which hints at irreversible consequences, but lacks clear when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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