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 'List all' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's read-only (implied but not stated). For a list tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves operationally.

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 waste: the first states the action and scope, and the second provides usage context. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently structured, making it easy to parse without unnecessary detail.

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 (list operation with 2 parameters), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and basic usage but lacks behavioral details (e.g., pagination defaults, response format) that would help an agent invoke it correctly. Without annotations or output schema, more context on what 'field definitions' include would improve completeness.

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') well-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 compensating value. It doesn't explain how pagination works in practice (e.g., default values or ordering).

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 ('all person field definitions, including custom fields'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes itself from other list tools like pipedrive_list_persons by specifying 'field definitions' rather than data records. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from pipedrive_list_deal_fields or pipedrive_list_organization_fields beyond the resource name, which slightly limits sibling differentiation.

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 guidance with 'Use to understand contact data structure,' suggesting it's for metadata exploration rather than operational tasks. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use criteria or named alternatives (e.g., compared to pipedrive_get_field for a single field). The context is clear but not comprehensive.

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