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 of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions listing with optional filtering, it fails to describe critical behaviors such as pagination (implied by the 'cursor' parameter but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the response format looks like. For a list operation with 13 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List persons (contacts) from Pipedrive') and immediately adds key filtering options. There is no wasted language, and it effectively communicates the essential information in a compact form, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (13 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and some filtering options but lacks details on behavioral aspects like pagination, response format, or error handling. While the schema provides parameter documentation, the description doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations or output schema, leaving gaps in overall context for effective tool 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?

The description adds minimal value beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage with detailed parameter descriptions. It mentions filtering by 'owner, organization, or first letter of name,' which maps to parameters like 'owner_id,' 'org_id,' and 'first_char,' but doesn't provide additional context or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting without needing extra semantic explanation from the description.

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 specific verb ('List') and resource ('persons (contacts) from Pipedrive'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It also distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'pipedrive_get_person' (singular retrieval) and 'pipedrive_search_persons' (search functionality) by emphasizing listing with optional filtering rather than targeted search or single-item retrieval.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'optional filtering by owner, organization, or first letter of name,' which suggests when to use this tool for filtered listing. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like 'pipedrive_search_persons' or 'pipedrive_get_person,' nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is present but not comprehensive.

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