Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Pipedrive MCP Server

Pipedrive MCP Server

by ckalima
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

pipedrive_list_mail_threads

Read-onlyIdempotent

List mail threads from your own mailbox, filtered by folder (inbox, drafts, sent, archive) with pagination support.

Instructions

List mail threads from YOUR mailbox only (authenticated user). Other users' threads are not accessible. Use folder parameter to filter by inbox, drafts, sent, or archive.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "pipedrive_list_mail_threads"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoNumber of items
startNoPagination offset
folderNoMail folder (default: inbox)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds critical behavioral context: the tool only accesses the authenticated user's mailbox and cannot access other users' threads. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose and scope, and the second provides actionable filter guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 list tool with good schema coverage and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, scope, and folder usage. Pagination parameters (start, limit) are documented in the schema, so their absence in the description is acceptable.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with all three parameters described. The description mentions the folder parameter and its enum values, but this adds minimal value beyond the schema descriptions. Baseline 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 the tool lists mail threads from the authenticated user's mailbox only, explicitly noting that other users' threads are inaccessible. This is a specific verb+resource+scope that distinguishes it from any potential sibling tools for listing all threads.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Description provides explicit guidance on using the folder parameter to filter by inbox, drafts, sent, or archive. It does not compare to sibling tools, but given the unique nature of this mail thread tool among siblings, the usage context is clear enough.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools