Pipedrive MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns metadata (not full message body) and that it accesses emails company-wide from any user's mailbox. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the metadata includes. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and scope, and the second provides critical usage guidance about an alternative tool. Every word earns its place, and it's 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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description does well by clarifying scope and usage alternatives. However, it lacks details on return format (metadata structure) and behavioral aspects like permissions or errors, which would be helpful since there's no output schema. It's mostly complete but has minor 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 all three parameters (id, start, limit) with their types and basic descriptions. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as how the pagination works or format constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 person'), and scope ('company-wide, all users' emails'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pipedrive_get_mail_message by specifying it returns metadata for emails from any user's mailbox linked to the person.

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 explicitly provides when to use this tool (to get metadata for emails linked to a person) and when to use an alternative (pipedrive_get_mail_message for full message body, but only for emails in YOUR mailbox). This gives clear guidance on tool selection.

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