Pipedrive MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read operation (implied by 'Get'), returns metadata only (not full bodies), has company-wide scope across all users, and mentions pagination context through the parameters. However, it doesn't explicitly state whether this requires special permissions or has rate limits.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences. The first sentence establishes the core purpose and scope, while the second provides crucial usage guidance. Every word serves a purpose with zero wasted content, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 read-only tool with 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description provides strong contextual completeness. It clearly explains what the tool returns (metadata for emails), scope limitations (company-wide), and relationship to sibling tools. The main gap is the lack of output format details, but given the tool's relative simplicity, this is a minor omission.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (id, start, limit) with clear descriptions. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate coverage through structured data.

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 specific action ('Get email messages'), target resource ('linked to a deal'), and scope ('company-wide, all users' emails'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pipedrive_get_mail_message by specifying this returns metadata from any user's mailbox rather than full message bodies.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'To get full message body, use pipedrive_get_mail_message, but only for emails in YOUR mailbox.' This clearly delineates the boundary between metadata retrieval (this tool) and full content retrieval (sibling tool with access limitations).

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