Pipedrive MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the 40-char hash aspect, which is useful context, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'details' include. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides usage context. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with essential information.

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?

Given 2 parameters with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains the tool's purpose and key use case but lacks details on return values, error handling, and behavioral constraints. For a simple lookup tool, this is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 both parameters well. The description adds marginal value by clarifying that the key is a '40-char hash for custom fields,' which helps interpret the key parameter. However, it doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides for entity_type.

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 verb ('Get details') and resource ('specific field'), specifying it's by key. It distinguishes from siblings like list_field tools by focusing on single-field lookup rather than listing multiple fields.

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 clear context: 'Useful for looking up what a 40-character hash field key means.' This indicates when to use it (decoding hash keys), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like list_field tools for browsing fields.

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