Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Pipedrive MCP Server

Pipedrive MCP Server

by ckalima
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

pipedrive_get_lead_conversion_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify if a lead-to-deal conversion finished by querying the status with the conversion ID and lead UUID.

Instructions

Get the status of an async lead-to-deal conversion by conversion ID (Pipedrive v2 GET /leads/{id}/convert/status/{conversion_id}).

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "conversion_id": "<conversion_id>"
    },
    "name": "pipedrive_get_lead_conversion_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesLead UUID
conversion_idYesConversion job UUID returned by the convert call

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.4.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds the endpoint but no additional behavioral traits like possible status values or pagination details.

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 a single sentence that includes the endpoint. It is concise with no unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not explain what the status response looks like (e.g., possible values). Annotations are rich but the description lacks completeness for a status-checking tool.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 the tool gets the status of an async lead-to-deal conversion using a conversion ID, with the API endpoint. It is specific but does not explicitly distinguish from the similar sibling pipedrive_get_deal_conversion_status.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used after calling pipedrive_convert_lead_to_deal, nor does it explain when not to use it.

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