Pipedrive MCP Server

pipedrive_get_project_permitted_users

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the user IDs who have permission to access a project. Provide the project ID to get an array of permitted user IDs.

Instructions

Get the list of user IDs that have permission to access a project. Returns an array of integer user IDs. (Projects add-on; Projects API in public beta.)

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>"
    },
    "name": "pipedrive_get_project_permitted_users"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	The project ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv2.4.0Jun 17, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, so the tool is safe and idempotent. The description adds value by stating the return type (array of integer user IDs) and noting the beta status, which is useful for reliability expectations. No contradictions.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the action ('Get the list...') and clearly specify the return format and beta context. No superfluous information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple, read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what it does and returns. It notes the add-on and beta status. However, it could mention potential errors or prerequisites (e.g., user must have access), but given the simplicity, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with one parameter 'id' described as 'The project ID'. The description does not add any additional syntax, constraints, or behavior details beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states it gets a list of user IDs with project access permission, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('list of user IDs'). This distinguishes it from siblings like pipedrive_get_project (which retrieves project details) and pipedrive_list_projects (which lists projects).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions it's part of the Projects add-on and in beta, but does not provide context for when to prefer this over other related tools (e.g., getting project details or listing tasks). Implied usage is clear but not elaborated.

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

Deploy Server