Pipedrive MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: user-specific access ('YOUR mailbox only'), authentication context ('authenticated user'), and folder filtering capability. However, it lacks details on pagination behavior (implied by start/limit parameters but not explained), rate limits, error handling, or return format, leaving gaps for a list operation.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the core purpose and access scope, the second adds parameter guidance. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, access scope, and parameter usage, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like pagination, response format, or error handling. For a list tool with 3 parameters and user-specific data, more context on output and constraints would improve completeness, though it meets minimum viability.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the folder parameter's purpose ('to filter by inbox, drafts, sent, or archive'), which clarifies usage beyond the schema's enum list. It also implies default behavior ('default: inbox' is in schema, but description reinforces filtering context). However, it does not add meaning for start/limit parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 'mail threads' with specific scope 'from YOUR mailbox only (authenticated user)', distinguishing it from sibling tools like pipedrive_get_mail_thread (singular) or pipedrive_get_mail_message. It explicitly mentions what is excluded ('Other users' threads are not accessible'), making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: for listing mail threads from the authenticated user's mailbox, with folder filtering. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on threads (not messages or other entities) and user-specific access. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., vs. pipedrive_get_mail_thread for a single thread), missing full explicit guidance.

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