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 for behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination (helpful) but omits critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what the paginated response structure looks like. For a list operation with 16 parameters, 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 perfectly concise: two sentences that efficiently cover the core functionality (listing with filtering) and key behavioral trait (pagination). Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or fluff, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 complexity (16 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, authentication needs, or how pagination works in practice. For a list tool with extensive filtering options, more context about response structure and operational constraints is needed for effective use.

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 all 16 parameters with descriptions, enums, and formats. The description adds minimal value by listing some filter types (owner, person, organization, etc.) but doesn't provide additional context like parameter interactions or usage examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('List deals from Pipedrive') and resource ('deals'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'pipedrive_get_deal' (singular retrieval) and 'pipedrive_search_deals' (search functionality), but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'pipedrive_list_organizations' or other list tools, preventing a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'pipedrive_search_deals' or 'pipedrive_get_deal'. It mentions optional filtering but doesn't explain scenarios where filtering is preferable to search, or when pagination becomes relevant. Without usage context, the agent must infer from tool names alone.

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