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 but only states it 'gets details' without disclosing behavioral traits like read-only nature, error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits. It lacks context on what 'details' include or how the ID should be obtained, leaving gaps for a mutation-heavy sibling environment.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the action and key input. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool 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 low complexity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage) but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context and output details, making it incomplete for fully informed tool selection in a server with many mutation tools.

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 fully documents the 'id' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying retrieval by ID, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline score of 3 applies as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 ('of a specific stage by ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like pipedrive_get_activity or pipedrive_get_deal, which follow the same pattern for other entities.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention pipedrive_list_stages for listing all stages or clarify if this is for retrieving metadata versus operational data. The description assumes context but offers no explicit usage rules.

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