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 mentions the tool lists 'all' field definitions, which implies completeness, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (though the schema shows start/limit parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'list' means operationally (e.g., returns an array). The description is minimal and misses key operational details.

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 concise sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with a brief usage hint, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every sentence earns its place by adding distinct value.

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 low complexity (a read-only list operation with 2 documented parameters) and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the 'what' but lacks details on behavior, output format, or error handling. With no annotations, it should provide more context about the operation's safety and results to be fully complete.

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%, with both parameters ('start' and 'limit') clearly documented in the schema as pagination controls. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without adding extra value.

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 ('List') and resource ('deal field definitions, including custom fields'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from other list tools by specifying 'deal fields' rather than deals or other entities, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling field tools like 'pipedrive_list_organization_fields' or 'pipedrive_list_person_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 implied usage context by stating the tool is 'Essential for understanding deal data structure,' suggesting it should be used to discover field definitions before working with deal data. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus other field list tools or alternatives, and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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